This summer, I had my question answer, and it is a resounding “yes.” I have recently finished Russel Banks’s Cloudsplitter, a 1998 novel about radical abolitionist John Brown, written from the point of view of his son, Owen. I finished the novel several weeks ago, and I haven’t stopped thinking about it since. For one, it is incredibly well written. It also, however, deals with very potent and complex questions facing society.

One the topic of race, the novel uses the story of John Brown to explore many of the themes found in Black literature: race as a social construction, the ability to choose race and the repercussions of that choice, numerous allusions to Black novels and authors (Invisible Man being the most potent, but also numerous references to slave narratives), and the untold story of people society chooses to ignore. John Brown, as a radical abolitionist, goes against the “expectations” or the “normal attitude” of his race. While many of the whites living around Brown are against slavery, few, if any, are willing to risk their lives for the cause. They insist on what Brown refers to as “passive resistance.” For Brown, this is not enough. He takes on “God’s work” to take down the “devil” slave owners and liberate the United States from the hands of Satan.

This, obviously, has social and economic repercussions. The Browns become increasingly exiled from white society, and more and more clients refuse to purchase their wool, their major source of income. The family, because of their skin color, is also not accepted by the Black community, leaving them basically ostracized from society at large and the butt of countless rumors surrounding John Brown’s morality and sanity. Like many of the characters in Black novels who choose to “pass,” the Browns “betray” their race by acting outside of the norm and, thus, are ostracized by it. The Browns, like “passing” characters, deny one race socially and are denied by the other race biologically. The difference with the Browns, however, is that they cannot “pass;” their skin is white and cannot be accepted by either community. Despite Brown’s efforts for the abolitionist cause, he will never be accepted as a member of Black society, much like the characters of Black novels who are wrongly ostracized from white society.

Aside from dealing with matters of race, Cloudsplitter also deals deeply with the effects and the morality of terrorism. Banks does not hide the fact that Brown is a terrorist. He pledges to be violently opposing slavery, which includes the deaths of hundred at Harper’s Ferry, in the name of God. Everything he does, all the men he kills, are because God has sanctioned it. Abolition is not only a moral question, but a spiritual question.

From the novel’s opening, Brown is described as a religious fanatic. He knows the Bible better than anyone else and believes the role of every single person to carry out the words of the Bible without question. He is not open to alternative ways of thinking and although he can be kind, he rules with an iron fist, and his greatest weapon is fear. Owen Brown fears his father, his intimidating stature and his spiritual confidence. There is a moment early in the novel when Owen breaks his arm attempting to escape during the Sabbath. Owen’s brother’s, who were associates to the escape, debate whether or not to tell father what happened because of their fear of the consequences. John Brown beats his children time and time again, and this fear is what he uses to keep them in line.

There is also the question of the glory and the morality of Brown’s religious crusade. John Brown opening admits that his worst sin is the sin of pride, and Owen wonders more than once about how this desire for recognition affects his actions. John Brown, for example, must be the one to lead them into battle and to make all military decisions. Nothing happens without him being in the lead. Other perspectives on John Brown’s actions also provide insight into his fanaticism. Other whites believe he has gone too far when he begins attacking and killing slave owners and slave catchers. Even Owen sees his father as crazy, even though he believes full heartedly in the cause. These perspectives make the reader step back and wonder about Brown’s fanaticism. Although, obviously, abolition was a cause worth fighting for and dying for, is guerilla warfare and terrorism the way to do that?

Also, the parallels to the terrorists of today become undeniable. John Brown, like the Taliban or any other religious extremists, believes whole heartedly in his cause and that he has been chosen by God to kill for that cause. Every death is in the name of God. Brown is also completely closed off other perspectives. If you will not fight and you will not die, then you’re a coward and a sinner. There is a major difference that should not be overlooked, however: Brown does not kill innocent people (although the slave owners he kills are civilians).

What makes the novel so involving, I think, is the attitude of the narrator towards his father. The novel, in many ways, is the story of John Brown, but it is also the story of his son. Owen never recovers from the death of his father. Because his father has been so overbearing throughout his life, Owen never forms his own identity but, rather, lives as a weapon to perform his father’s bidding. After Harper’s Ferry, Owen disappears. He leaves his family and society and resides in the mountains of upstate NY. In some ways, there is profound respect for John Brown and his actions. There is also, however, a deep fear for the danger he poses. Brown takes the law into his own hands and kills others in the name of “God’s work.” He targets civilians, albeit slave owners. Does Brown’s just cause liberate him from the label of “terrorist”? Does the morality of his mission erase the danger his perspective and actions pose to society? These are the questions the novel leaves us with.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/08/ten_things_i_know_about_the_mo.html

In the years since 9/11, public opinion in this country regarding Muslims has been widely misguided. From the moment the towers fell, terrorism has been associated with Muslims; and thousands of innocent Muslims have paid the price for their extremist representatives. Hate crimes against Muslims spiked from 354 attacks in 2000, to over 1,500 attacks in 2001; and, throughout the country, Muslims have been subject to prejudices ranging from Attorney General John Ashcroft’s statement, “Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you” and the ongoing case A.C.L.U of N.C. v State of North Carolina, in which Muslims fight for the right to swear on the Qu’ran rather than the Christian Bible in the court of law. Furthermore, as usual, the media has propogated the negative view of Muslims. A Eurpol report showed that more than 99% of terrorist attacks in Europe were carried out by non-Muslims and, contrary to popular opinion, only a small minority are carried out by Islam extremists. An article in the New York Times stated:

On top of the fear and confusion in New York about Islam after 9/11, a movement had begun to spring up against Muslims seeking a larger role in American public life. In 2007, Debbie Almontaser, a Muslim educator, had been forced to resign as the principal of an Arabic-language public school in Brooklyn after such groups helped paint her as supporting terrorism. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/nyregion/11mosque.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&sq=mosque%20debate&st=cse&scp=31)

Just or not, the Islam community must deal with this negativity. In my personal experience, there are two separate “Islam Awareness Week”s at Rutgers in which Muslims set up tents and distribute pamphlets, Qu’rans, play games informative of Islamic beliefs and practices, and participate in communal prayers. Organizers of the Prayer Center hope that it’s erection will not only quelch anti-muslim sentiment but also bring Muslims together. As reported in the above article, Robina Niaz, one of the center’s organizers, explains, the mosque controversy has “made it legitimate for everybody else out there to lash out at Muslims. It has brought us together. But it also shows how much we have to do.” The Islamic community must constantly struggle with the negative image imposed on it, and seek to break down that image by garnering positive publicity from sites like the Prayer Center, which hopes to be a symbol of the diversity and freedom of religion and toleration in the United States.

There are some who see the center as some sort of victory tower, or as a commemoration to the extremists who died in the 9/11 attacks. I think these people need to visit the center and see for themselves what Islam is about– peace, love and tolerance. No one won on 9/11. Terrorists thrive through fear. Through ignorance, and I think that this Prayer Center is a important and effective to bridge the river of fear and intolerance, of ignorance, that has flowed against the Muslims for nearly 10 years. The stark juxtaposition between the remnants of Ground Zero, displaying the castrophe brought about by hatred and prejudice, and the Prayer Center, focusing on the true pillars of Islam and serving as vindication for the unjustly oppressed Muslim-Americans building it, would sent quite a statement vibrating throughout not only the country, but the world.

I do, however, fear what the Prayer Center will mean in the short run. I expect there to be protests, and I fear there may be violence. The black civil rights movement dealt with similar dilemnas. In 1957, 9 black students enrolled in Little Rock High School, but only 1 arrived on the first day; she didn’t recieve the phone call regarding the immense danger the students were in. On that occassion, President Eisenhow called in the air force to protect the students, escorting them to and from school and between classes. These students had to deal with the threat of violence and the arousal of fear, but, in the long run, it was a definite move towards equality in the United States. Similarly, I believe that the Muslims organizing the Prayer Center will have to face protest and hatred, but, in the long run, its construction will be an important step in educating US citizens about the true spirit of Islam and help bring an end to the decade of violence and discrimination– at schools (Islam headscarfs are banned in schools in France), airports (Sharukh Khan was subject to what he described as ”humiliating” questions for several hours at Newark Airport because of his last name), government (Turkey is still not able a part of the EU) , in their own homes (spike in hate crimes), and a 2010 study showed that “Muslims sending out resumes in hopes of a job interview had 2.5 times less chance than Christians’ with similar credentials “of a positive response to their applications.”^[164] — that they have had to endure.

Prejudice is like a mold. Something sets it off, a personal dispute or an extremist action, and that event becomes a representative of an entire group. The hatred, the image, is harbored, and ferments. Similar to way in which mold begins when dad missed a spot with the mop in the corner of the celler after it flooded in the last storm. The moisture sits. Slowly, the mold begins to grow. Prejudice is then handed down, father to son, generation to generation, strengthening and growing more rank, more violent, until it has become so engrained that it becomes nealry impossible to uproot, or to remember how it began. We don’t question the actions of our predessessors, we merely continue them. Here we are, on the threshold of mold formation, with a chance to eradicate it.

Last night, I got upset about some things that have been stressing me out a lot lately, and I told someone about them. She said I was being difficult. That didn’t make me feel better but talking to her did. This morning I woke up and had a very interesting realization: she was right. I lost track of whats important, and this morning I felt very ashamed of myself.

I’ve done a lot this summer, and I’m proud and glad I had those experiences. I just hoped maybe I had finally turned the corner and realized what really matters in life. I’ve always been such an anxious person. I hate it. It hurts the people who care most about me and it ruins my relationships. I don’t know what it is. I’m frustrated. I need something to make me remember what’s important when things get tough. I have everything I need. I have friends; I have a girlfriend who I love very much; I’m attending an excellent university. Who am I to complain? I mean, really, how hard does my life realy get? I guess I just need someone to slap me every now and again when I get like last night, just to remember whats important. To keep things in perspective.

Next time I’m feeling that way, I’m going to sit down and write out all the things I have to be thankful for. Write down all the opportunities I have and all the things that matter to me. Realize how lucky I am. Then, everything else will float away, because I have everything I need. Everything else will just fall into place. It’ll all be ok, I just need to keep perspective.

I guess I’m just frustrated because I thought I had turned the corner. I thought I had made myself a better person, but I guess I haven’t. I thought I learned, but I’m still just a silly stupid little boy. I don’t like that part of myself, and I’m determined to fix it.

Every so often, there comes along an experience which you feel you not only should write about, but you must write about. An experience which changes you in such a way that you feel almost a moral obligation to express and share it. This post concerns such an experience. I have not posted because I’ve been in the Philippines the past 4 weeks volunteering to teach English at an elementary school. While there, I obviously had the privilege of seeing new things, meeting new people, and experiencing new situations. While there, I visited a landfill. This experience, above all, is what I feel I must write about.

This was not just any smelly, hot, dirty landfill (although it was all of those things), but a landfill where little children could be found, malnourished and hungry, picking through mounds of garbage, searching for aluminums, plastics, and glass to sell to the junkyard down the street. A landfill where huts were set up as “resting stations” to sit during the intense heat of the mid-day and break from the endless search. A landfill where children and adults, missing limbs because they reached a little too close to machinery, could be found, left to throw garbage as a form to play.

You see, in the Philippines, there is no “welfare”; there is no “unemployment”; there is no safety-net. When you lost your job, when you were poor, that was it. You were poor, and you survived the best (or the only) way that you could. For these families, that consisted of searching through the landfill day in and day out. Parents took their children out of school so that more sellable goods could be scavenged, more money made, and more food put on the table. Throughout my own life, I’ve never been wealthy. I’ve never had a lot of money, but I never once walked home from school wondering if food would be on the table. My mother lost her job last year, but I never feared being taken out of school, so that I could find a job to support a family. For some, this is their reality. At the dumpsite, I had the chance to see it up close. To talk to the children who worked the landfill, who played the landfill, who lived the landfill.

*                                                                       *                                                                  *

It was a cloudy, overcast day (thank-god, I can only imagine what this place feels like in the sun). Rain clouds threatened overhead, as we entered the premises. Sami stops and takes a look around. I watch her. A hole opens in front of us. A big, black hole filled with garbage and oozing methane gas, surrounded by majestic mountains and a calm lake. It’s a bit ironic, isn’t it? The landscape is so beautiful, I say. Sami gives me an awkward smile. We begin to walk.

At first, the children are stand-offish; they look at us strangely, perhaps a little afraid or ashamed, or perhaps just wondering who we were and what we were doing there. I look back, not quite sure what to say. What do you say to a child when you find them in a landfill? Hello? How are you? Can I have your picture? Do you speak English? I’m speechless and helpless, at a loss for words. I stand awkwardly as Sami reaches into her backpack and takes out a bag of fruit flavored lollipops. “Do you want some candy?” She asks, reaching out her hand to the children. They nod and walk over, sacks of trash not much smaller than them thrown over their shoulders. Their flip-flops are blackened with dirt, and their feet darkened, either from the sun or from the trash. Dirt streaks across their shirts and their chests. Flies swarm around us as we find out they are all about ten years old, and they have been here all day.

They smile, lollipops in mouth, as they pose for a picture. Suddenly, a bulldozer drives by, and all the children and adults are in a flourish. They scramble to pick up their bags and their sacks and their baskets. The dozer moves slowly through the trash, moving aside the old to make room for the new. They scramble in around it, eager to find new treasures and see what is uncovered by the dozer. The more they find, the more they sell, the more they eat. I stand, amazed. Don’t get too close, I want to shout. Watch out! But they’re too far away, and there’s too much noise. There’s no use in yelling.

I turn away, unable to see or to watch. And all I see is mounds and mounds of trash. A tear trickles.

*                                                                      *                                                          *

Sometimes, it takes seeing what life is like someplace else to appreciate what you have. The experience of seeing the dumpsite kids, seeing for an hour or so how they live and spend their hours, has awakened me to the reality of developing third world nations. I learned a lot of things in the Philippines, but perhaps the most important was perspective. We have a lot in this country that we take for granted, such as education and food. We feel entitled to it, but it’s not like that everywhere. In medical clinics, doctors would deliver babies bare handed from mothers who didn’t have the choice to use anesthetics. In the towns, 5th graders couldn’t do their homework because they had to come home from school and drive a pedicab to help support the family.

The volunteer organization I worked with, Volunteer for the Visayans, accepts donations for these and many other underprivileged and malnourished children. For only $300 a year, a child can attend school, receive money for supplies, and be provided with groceries every 2 weeks. I’m reaching out to you. We can make a difference in the life of a child. We can save one of these children from the dumpsite.

http://www.visayans.org/Dumpsite.cfm

                             BENDER

               You know what I got for
               Christmas this year?  It was a
               banner fuckin’ year at the old
               Bender family!  I got a carton of
               cigarettes.  The old man grabbed me
               and said “Hey!  Smoke up Johnny!”
               Okay, so go home an? cry to your
               daddy, don’t cry here, okay?
     There are a few beats.
                            ANDREW
               My God, are we gonna be like our
               parents?
                            CLAIRE
               Not me…ever…
                           ALLISON
               It’s unavoidable, it just happens.
                            CLAIRE
               What happens?
                           ALLISON
               When you grow up, your heart dies.

-The Breakfast Club

There’s no one in the world that has more influence on how we develop– our attitudes, behaviors, decisions, psychology, language, immune system– than our parents. Everyone, naturally, looks to their parents first as an example for behavior. When we grow older, they exert their attitudes and morals on us through a system of punishments and rewards, through a lack or abundance of restrictions and freedoms. Through these various systems, they force their values onto us because they believe they are teaching and conditioning us to be upright and productive members of society. Beneath this, however, is the equally deep influence on the environment of the home, which seemingly inevitably dictates how we develop as people. When we grow older, we recognize this influence, and either reject it or internalize it, but rejecting is always harder than it seems.

Recently, I’ve been thinking a lot about my parents, the way I was brought up, the environment in which I developed, and the way in which those factors have influenced my personality. I’ve also thought about what kind of parent I would be. Would I force my children into the same interests as me? Would I accept them for what they desired and achieved, regardless of how it conflicted with my expectations or wishes? Would I be able to tiptoe the vague line between guardianship and tyranny? I criticize my own parents a lot, but would I be able to do better?

I grew up in what one could call a “broken” home. My parents were divorced when I was 6, and my dad remarried several years later. For as long as I can clearly remember, I’ve had two households, switching back and forth between my mom and my dad every other week. For as long as I’ve known anyone, there was the distinction between my “mom’s house” and my “dad’s house,” both of which included a different set of rules, standards, privileges and addresses. My mom was more libertarian, she lets my brothers and I do whatever we wanted so long as we stayed out of trouble, and, when we got in trouble, usually still didn’t care all that much. She didn’t punish us, but sometimes the frustration would continually build until it hit the inevitable breaking point. My dad was very different. My stepmother and father imposed strict rules on us, made us clean our rooms, demanded where we went at night and dictated we MUST be home at a certain time (both of which still continue today), and punished us harshly and with the traditional methods of being sent to your room or made to sit in the corner or just the dreaded “evil eye.” There is a bathroom off of our livingroom that neither my brothers nor I, and only on occasions that my stepmom was not awake, my father could use. My mother refered to it as “our house.” Each household had a different environment, and I have a different relationship with my mother and my father and my stepmother. I can see what I’ve taken from each of my parents (ironically, my stepmom may have had the strongest influence).

I return to the central question: are we destined to become our parents? When you’re young, you’re blind to your parents’ shortcomings. You accept them as the ultimate example. You follow and emulate their every move. As a young adult, however, I am no longer blinded and the fact that I not longer live with my parents for most of the year alerts me more keenly to their personalities and their faults. College allowed me, and many others I would think, the opportunity to develop away from my parents and to gain a more secure sense of self, which may or may not be compatible with my high school person. I’ve realized my stepmother and father were controlling, demanding, intimidating and, quite often, anal. They always expected a lot out of my brothers and I, and this probably prepared me to be academically successful. My mother was very lenient and messy, but this is probably when my open-mindedness came from. I also, however, fear I have gained the worst parts of my parents. I am overly critical of myself and others, and I do not always confront people or handle problems with others properly. I have a tendency to let things build and build, until I can no longer contain it. These are problems for me, and they are obstacles in my personality that I must level and overcome. It’s interesting to think about where they come from, and I believe they reside in the split household of my youth. I look at my brothers, and I find their faults, too, reside in leaning too far towards one extreme (the leniency of my mom) or the other (the strictness of my father and stepmother).

I don’t want to give off the wrong impression. I am grateful towards my parents. They have always supported me in my endeavours, and I have never doubted their love. They’re human, they have faults. Don’t we all? This is not a bitter post, or a negative evaluation, but rather a self-reflective musing. I have faults, and I believe these faults are a product of my upbringing. They are, however, my faults. They are also a product of the way in which I, fairly or unfairly, perceive my environment. The are a product of my own mental environment and the choices I have made in my friends and pursuits. My brothers and I all grew up in the same environment and, albeit we all have faults, they are different faults. Our faults are a product of the environment we created, as a family.

What kind of father would I be? My friend told me I’d be a pusher. I would push my children into be replicas of myself: runners who love art and writing. Straight-A students. Self-demanding. I can only hope that I wouldn’t be so vain and self-centered to do that. I like to think I would allow my children to be whatever they liked and love them anyway. I would hope that I would be as open-minded about my child’s endeavours as my parents were with me (my father and mother, by the way, are overweight and work desk jobs, my father is an accountant and my mother a sales rep. I am an english major and marathoner). Parenting is a tough job, probably the toughest that there is, and I’m glad that I have a long time before I have to worry about it. I don’t think we’re destined to become our parents, despite their overwhelming influence on our development, but I’m finding now that it’s tough to be aware of how your parents have affected your environment and yourself and then break from that. Its tough, after so many years of subordination, be stand up on your own.

The novel begins as many other bildungsroman do, with the protagonist as a young boy, perhaps, with his first memory: his father singing him a song. The novel begins in dialect with the familiar “Once upon a time.” There are, however, as throughout the book, no quotation marks or any indication that it is a character speaking, rather than the narrator. The book just, well, opens: no introduction, no prompting. The reader is given the lines and left to decode them on his own. In the opening pages, the novel completely inhabits and reflects the mind of the child, with short, choppy sentences and its direct relationship between names and things, from which the child and the reader come to know the world of the novel. The first characters introduced are Rody Kickham and Nasty Roche, two schoolmates who pick on Stephen. What more fitting name could there be for two bullies? Furthermore, the metaphors are very rudimentary, “it was like something in a book,” and the association between the hotel faucets: “He felt cold and then a little hot: and he could see the names printed on the cocks” (22,23). appearances and names reflect reality, and the child has no concept of deception or disingenuousness, and the reader is given the thoughts and the world of a child unmediated. It is immediate, and, thus, draws the reader into the mind of the child. We not only see and understand the child, we become the child.

As the novel progresses, the stability and the reliability of its world becomes increasingly complex and abstract. The first two chapters are mostly dominated by the education and interaction of the child with others. Stephen’s school keeps him in line, and religious observation dominates most of his life.  At the end of chapter two, however, this order breaks down as Stephen has his first run in with carnal sin and lust. He describes trying “to build a breakwater of order and elegance against the sordid tide of life without him and to dam up…the powerful recurrence of the tides within him,” and as breaking into a “dark orgiastic riot” like “some baffled prowling beast” (106, 107, 108). The restrained, conservative language of sexual innuendo and implicit association becomes explicit and vivid, and the reader, like Stephen, must confront and come to terms with this language. The reader experiences the sexual awakening that Stephen undergoes, which is what makes the following chapter so immensely powerful and disturbing.

The third chapter relates a detailed, vivid, and intense vision of hell. For the most part, the chapter  consists of direct quotations. Like the opening, however, these quotations are not “divided” out of the text by punctuation or by introduction. They are just presented. Unmediated. I know when I read this chapter, I had to stop more than a few times to let the intense and gripping words settle down in my mind. It’s a tough chapter to get through. It’s gory, its intense. The reason it’s so intense and gripping is precisely because Joyce presents it as an experience we undergo with Stephen. We hear the words of the priest the same way he does, and, because it is not  an easy time for Stephen, who grapples with the sin and the nature of his own soul and the prospect of the afterlife, it cannot be an easy time for the reader. We experience everything Stephen does.

In the final scene of the novel, the theme of names and realties comes full circle. The novel becomes increasingly more abstract, it shifts from the narrative of the details of a schoolboy’s life to a philosophical rumination on the nature of art and religion, and the novel increasingly subverts the world it earlier, as a child, had taken for granted. The final conversation between Cranly and Stephen becomes the epitome of this conversion. In the opening, as discussed earlier, names and labels define their object: the faucet that is labelled “hot” spews how water, and the faucet labelled “cold” spews cold water. In chapter five, Cranly and Stephen ostensibly discuss religion, specifically, the nature of Jesus as a human being and the evaluation of his actions, especially towards his mother. He tells Stephen he will be completely alone, and Stephen stares him down, “Of whom are you speaking? Stephen asked at length. Cranly did not answer” (249). Names are completely subverted, and Cranly no longer speaks about himself, the surface reality does not reflect his inner motives but shadows them.

The novel is amazing. It creates a complete experience, the “vitality which has flowed and eddied round each person fills each person with such vital force that he or she assumes a proper and intangible esthetic life” and the world of the novel takes on a life of its own (217). In the final chapter, the language of religion and God that weaves through the first four chapters is appropriated to art, and the artist becomes an “artificer” and his work “like the creation of a God” (179, 189). Like Stephen, in order to present a complete, full experience, Joyce tries “to fly by these nets” of “nationality, language, religion” which has bound others and, to this point, bound himself. Joyce, unlike the writers of the 18th and 19th century novels, presents the world of the novel unmediated by a narrator. The narrator gives no impression or protection for the reader, and the reader must work through and decode the work on his own. It is not easy task; it requires work and, often, the novel is not easy to read. It is, however, always harder to put down.

The more I think about it (and maybe the more I freak out about the GRE) the more I want to take some time off after undergraduate before I apply for Graduate School. Gain what my Professor referred to as Life Experience. Work a job. Travel to a different country. Learn a new language. Read. Write. Think. He related to me his own experience after undergraduate, and it sounded very exciting and important. He travelled to France, stayed with family and took classes. He learned French, interacted with the people, made connections and relationships at the University (which he skipped class to do) and, most of all, he talked about spending time at the Cafe, reading and thinking. Filling the wholes in his undergraduate career (afterall, there’s so much to read). That sounds exciting to me. I want to have experiences, I want to have a chance to grow and mature on my own.

This summer I will be teaching english in the Philippines. I’ve never been out of the country (until last summer, had never been on a plane) and I’ve never experienced another culture outside of New Jersey. I’ve been here my entire life, in the same county. I’m excited about getting out and learning. I’m excited about teaching. It’s what I want to do. If this works out, maybe I’ll get certified after I graduate and get paid to teach in a foreign country. Or maybe I’ll just teach someplace in the area. I guess only time will tell. There’s a lot of factors and a lot of things to think about.

Looking back, I’ve learned a lot this year. Last year, Dowling taught me how to read. He changed the way I think about poetry and literature. I learned close reading and I appreciated the value of words a lot more. This year, Professor Turner taught me how to write. I learned how to organize and express my thoughts more clearly and succinctly. I also became very exposed to different kinds of literature (post-modern, marxist) that challenged and expanded my way of thinking and reading. I want to continue to grow in this way, expanding my horizons. I never want to stop. There’s always more to know and learn. Always more to experience. 

I guess what I’m trying to organize and express is that I’ve learned a lot. I’ve come a long way over this challenging and busy year. I taught my first class which brought with it loads of challenging and enlightening experiences. I wrote my first twenty page paper (and, consequently, my first cup of coffee). I have a new group of friends for the first time since high school. I travelled out of the state on my own for the first time last summer. I also have a lot to look forward to this next year. I’ll write my first thirty page paper (thesis). I’m moving into my own place, and I’ll have my own room in august. I’ll be travelling out of the country for the first time. Hopefully, I’ll take my first graduate school seminar. And, more immediately, I’ll be starting my first Joyce novel in a matter of hours (another important rite of passage). A lot is going to happen in the next year, and it will prepare me for the rest of my life. Decisions will have to be made. It’s all very exciting.

Or maybe… 

“‘But, my dear Frankenstein,” continued he, stopping short and gazing full in my face, ‘I did not before remark how very ill you appear; so thin and pale; you look as if you had been watching several nights.’…Clerval at first attributed my unusual spirits to joy on his arrival, but when he observed me more attentively, he saw a wildness in my eyes for which he could not account, and my loud, unrestrained, heartless laughter frightened and astonished him” (Mary Shelly, Frankenstein). 

Doctor Victor Frankenstein 

Or… 

“To this rule, Dr. Jekyll was no exception; and as he now sat on the opposite side of the fire–a large, well-made, smooth-faced man of fifty, with something of a stylish cast perhaps, but every mark of capacity and kindness–you could see by his looks that he cherished for Mr. Utterson a sincere and warm affection.” 

“The lawyer stood awhile when Mr. Hyde had left him, the picture of disquietude.  Then he began slowly to mount the street, pausing every step or two and putting his hand to his brow like a man in mental perplexity.  The problem he was thus debating as he walked, was one of a class that is rarely solved.  Mr. Hyde was pale and dwarfish, he gave an impression of deformity without any nameable malformation, he had a displeasing smile, he had borne himself to the lawyer with a sort of murderous mixture of timidity and boldness, and he spoke with a husky, whispering and somewhat broken voice; all these were points against him, but not all of these together could explain the hitherto unknown disgust, loathing and fear with which Mr. Utterson regarded him.” (Stevenson, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde) 

Jekyll and Hyde

Science is all around us; it filters through all the ranks of society. It’s in our food (genetic engineering); it’s in our technology; it’s in our education; it’s in the very way we reason ourselves through the multifarious novel situations we encounter daily. But what is a scientist, and what is science? 

Isaac Newton, in many ways, embodies the picture of the classic scientist: old, working tirelessly and alone in a dark basement laboratory conducting unknown and strange experiments; obsessed with math and calculations, driven by his work; anti-social and withdrawn. His methods, however, greatly differed from what we would deem as “science” by today’s standards. Newton was obsessed with religion, a staunch Arian, and dedicated his entire life to linking divine force and the physical world. Newton sought endlessly to drag God back into science and back into the everyday lives of men through hours upon hours of alchemical experimentation and scriptural analysis. 

Ben Franklin, on the other hand, embodied a much different kind of scientist, although he lived only a short time after Newton. Franklin was a gentleman. A self-made success from his printing business, Franklin pursued science as a useful leisure activity, attempting to improve the lives of men with inventions (the lightening rod, for example) and other practical applications of science. Franklin worked and interacted with other gentleman pursuing the same values, creating a public sphere of sorts for the exchange of information and formation of new ideas. Science was a social, not a religious (although religion still played a large role) or a obessesive, endeavour. 

All of these images of the scientist circled around the same time in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Frankenstein (1818), Jekyll and Hyde (1886), Benjamin Franklin(1706-1790) and Isaac Newton (1642-1727) show the interesting development of science in the public eye from a virtuous, religious activity to a somewhat dark, mysterious and, very possibly, dangerous one (the science of Jekyll and Hyde is quite disastrous). At the time of its publication in late Victorian England, Jekyll and Hyde embodied the anxieties of the age, when Europeans questioned the morality of their “progress’ which involved not only technological innovation but also the colonization of “inferior peoples” in the name of “White Man’s Burden.” Science was blamed for the loss of virtue and the disappearance of God and religion. Frankenstein, written at a time when science was still emerging as a legitimate lifestyle, explores the nature and the power of man. In the early 19th century, Europeans were anxious about the large steps science was taking and feared the results. Dr. Frankenstein oversteps the bounds of conscience, and it has disastrous consequences, the creation of an unstoppable and perpetually unhappy monster. Furthermore, this time saw an increase in human automata, robots that resembled and acted like human beings. Frankenstein debates the possibilities and virtues of such technology. To what extent can human be created? To what extent is that creation righteous?

Like these novels, Franklin and Newton represent the scientific anxieties of their age. Newton was concerned with the overtaking of religion by science, fearing that scientific revelation would steer educated individuals away from God. Franklin’s time was concerned with improvement, improvement of the human mind, soul and condition. Thus, Franklin had to justify his scientific work through application. Both men lived at important times in the history of science. Newton’s saw an explosion of discoveries by the likes of Galileo and Copernicus which challenged church and ancient doctrines firmly established and believed throughout the 16th century Renaissance; Franklin saw the emergence of science in the everyday lives of people (even if only wealthy aristocrats) and, thus, as a legitimate endeavour. 

Today, depictions of scientists vary greatly depending on the circumstance. Movies such as Flubber depict the mad but brilliant scientist; The Prestige (excellent film) blurs the line between magic and science, scientist and magician; mostly, however, science today is conducted at research universities and hospitals. Science is regulated, there are rules and methods to be followed. Everything is objective, and measures (double-blind tests) are taken to ensure objectivity. Religion is a non-factor. Barbara Lehn and Carol Krauss wrote What is a Scientist (1999), a children’s book illustrating the various ways that everyone, even children, are scientists (http://books.google.com/books?id=ViLqr1nJEOIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=what+is+a+scientist%3F&source=bl&ots=35dTTR2kh8&sig=lexQQCkb-dUtMHBJAxhxvBhqysk&hl=en&ei=obihS _3IcuVtgfR5aCRCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false). In a recent post, this is how a Ph.D. in neuroscience described her thoughts:

Paul Bentley as Charles Darwin in Creation

“Many people have what seems to me to be a pretty restricted view of what a “scientist” is. To many people, including practicing scientists themselves, a “scientist” must obtain the following credentials: 

• Training in a specific scientific subdiscipline, such as physics, biochemistry, or physiology
• A PhD
• A series of ongoing publications in peer-reviewed journals
• A position at an academic institution or research facility, public or private
• Funding”

She goes on to widen the scientific field to those who are curious and those to teach others what they learn and, finally, anyone who thinks systematically to solve problems (very interesting post: http://scienceblogs.com/neurotopia/2009/03/what_makes_a_scientist.php). Today, unlike the 18th and 19th centuries, science is everywhere in society and, likewise, the depictions of scientists have grown to encompass everyone.

Best Supporing Actor: 

Matt Damon in “Invictus” (Warner Bros.)
Woody Harrelson in “The Messenger” (Oscilloscope Laboratories)
Christopher Plummer in “The Last Station” (Sony Pictures Classics)
Stanley Tucci in “The Lovely Bones” (DreamWorks in association with Film4, Distributed by Paramount)
Christoph Waltz in “Inglourious Basterds” (The Weinstein Company)

Will Win AND Should Win:

This time, they’re both hands down the same person: Christoph Waltz. He’s won every award he could have over the past several months (beginning by winning at Cannes over the summer). One of the few locks of this year’s ceremony, Waltz will win for his deliciously evil portrayl of a Nazi in Tarantino’s WWII epic. For once, someone dared to overshadow Brad Pitt.

Best Supporting Actress:

Penélope Cruz in “Nine” (The Weinstein Company)
Vera Farmiga in “Up in the Air” (Paramount in association with Cold Spring Pictures and DW Studios)
Maggie Gyllenhaal in “Crazy Heart” (Fox Searchlight)
Anna Kendrick in “Up in the Air” (Paramount in association with Cold Spring Pictures and DW Studios)
Mo’Nique in “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” (Lionsgate)

Will Win AND Should Win:

Yet again, another basic lock. Mo’Nique, in an amazing turn from a low-level comedian to a satin-possess mother, delievers a powerful performance in Precious. The final scene alone would win her an Oscar.

Best Adapter Screenplay: 

“District 9″ (Sony Pictures Releasing) Written by Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell
“An Education” (Sony Pictures Classics) Screenplay by Nick Hornby
“In the Loop” (IFC Films) Screenplay by Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Tony Roche
“Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” (Lionsgate) Screenplay by Geoffrey Fletcher
“Up in the Air” (Paramount in association with Cold Spring Pictures and DW Studios) Screenplay by Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner

Will Win: Up in the Air

Proclaimed by some as the best film of the year, Up in the Air will take the screenplay gold as a consulation prize (seeing as it has no shot in any of the other five catagories in which it’s nominated). Reitman (who also penned the excellent Thank You For Smoking) weaves a tale involving real characters and real situations. The film recieved strong support for Best Picture early in the season, but as its momentum has slowed, so has its expectations. I would say its still a solid bet though.

Should Win: Precious

It’s close. Very close. If I had to vote, though, I’d give the nod to Precious for its ability to move. The mother, played amazingly by Mo’Nique, is drawn so precisely by the screenplay, which allows you to hate her so much, yet finds sympathy for her in the film’s final moments. If anythin has a chance to upset, I would put my money here. Unfortunately, awards voters haven’t been as strongly moved by it as I have.

Best Original Screenplay: 

“The Hurt Locker” (Summit Entertainment) Written by Mark Boal
“Inglourious Basterds” (The Weinstein Company) Written by Quentin Tarantino
“The Messenger” (Oscilloscope Laboratories) Written by Alessandro Camon & Oren Moverman
“A Serious Man” (Focus Features) Written by Joel Coen & Ethan Coen
“Up” (Walt Disney) Screenplay by Bob Peterson, Pete Docter; Story by Pete Docter, Bob Peterson, Tom McCarthy

Will Win: Inglorious Basterds

Tarantino yet again, as he did with Pulp Fiction, will have to settle for Best Screenplay. Personally, I think the best feature of the film is the expert directing, but Tarantino falls short of Bigelow in that category. Basterds came out of nowhere to take home the top prize at this year’s SAG Awards and, although it fell short of even a nomination at the Writer’s Guild, the Oscars love off-beat films in this category. They aren’t brave enough to give it director or picture, but here it’s a safer bet. I’d watch out for The Hurt Locker though, it took home the Writer’s Guild award and could sweep this year’s Oscars.

Should Win: The Hurt Locker

The Hurt Locker is, in some ways, poetry. It depicts war as it is; no gimmics; no jazz. I respect that. Powerful and moving, it should win.

Best Actress: 

Sandra Bullock in “The Blind Side” (Warner Bros.)
Helen Mirren in “The Last Station” (Sony Pictures Classics)
Carey Mulligan in “An Education” (Sony Pictures Classics)
Gabourey Sidibe in “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” (Lionsgate)
Meryl Streep in “Julie & Julia” (Sony Pictures Releasing)

Will Win: Sandra Bullock

If you told me at the beginning of the awards season that The Blind Side would sneak its way into the Best Actress and Best Picture races, I would have laughed in your face. And it took quite a while for me to become a Bullock believer (not until the SAG Awards, actually). But she’s won too many awards and has too much momentum to be stopped.

Should Win: Gabourey Sidibe

I didn’t see any of the other nominations, so I don’t know how much this means, but Sadibe was excellent as Precious. Real. No other way to describe it.

Best Actor: 

Jeff Bridges in “Crazy Heart” (Fox Searchlight)
George Clooney in “Up in the Air” (Paramount in association with Cold Spring Pictures and DW Studios)
Colin Firth in “A Single Man” (The Weinstein Company)
Morgan Freeman in “Invictus” (Warner Bros.)
Jeremy Renner in “The Hurt Locker” (Summit Entertainment)

Will Win AND Should Win: Jeff Bridges

Colin Firth put up quite a battle for a while, but for weeks it’s been all Bridges. Admittedly, I didn’t love the movie as much as some, but it nearly entirely hinges on Bridges performance as Bad Blake, and he pulls it off.  It’ll be nice to see the five-time nominee finally get some love. Similar to The Wrestler, an ok screenplay with excellent performances, but this time there’s no Sean Penn to end the cinderella story of the little movie that could.

Best Director: 

“Avatar” (20th Century Fox) James Cameron
“The Hurt Locker” (Summit Entertainment) Kathryn Bigelow
“Inglourious Basterds” (The Weinstein Company) Quentin Tarantino
“Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” (Lionsgate) Lee Daniels
“Up in the Air” (Paramount in association with Cold Spring Pictures and DW Studios) Jason Reitman

Will Win AND Should Win: Kathryn Bigelow

She won the Director’s Guild (which predicts the Oscar winner 80-something percent of the time). She won numerous critics awards. She’ll be the first woman ever to win. Everything points in her favor. Yes, Avatar was excellent filmaking and an unbelievable achievement, but this isn’t 1997, and it isn’t Titanic. James Cameron has his moment in the sun, and now its time for his ex-wife to. Brave and powerful, The Hurt Locker is a film that stays with you long after the credits roll, and its mostly a product of the excellent handling of Bigelow.

Best Picture: 

“Avatar” (20th Century Fox) A Lightstorm Entertainment Production James Cameron and Jon Landau, Producers
“The Blind Side” (Warner Bros.) An Alcon Entertainment Production Nominees to be determined
“District 9″ (Sony Pictures Releasing) A Block/Hanson Production Peter Jackson and Carolynne Cunningham, Producers
“An Education” (Sony Pictures Classics) A Finola Dwyer/Wildgaze Films Production Finola Dwyer and Amanda osey, Producers
“The Hurt Locker” (Summit Entertainment) A Voltage Pictures Production Nominees to be determined
“Inglourious Basterds” (The Weinstein Company) A Weinstein Company/Universal Pictures/A Band Apart/Zehnte Babelsberg Production Lawrence Bender, Producer
“Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” (Lionsgate) A Lee Daniels Entertainment/Smokewood Entertainment Production Lee Daniels, Sarah Siegel-Magness and Gary Magness, Producers
“A Serious Man” (Focus Features) A Working Title Films Production Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, Producers
“Up” (Walt Disney)A Pixar Production Jonas Rivera, Producer
“Up in the Air” (Paramount in association with Cold Spring Pictures and DW Studios) A Montecito

Will Win AND Should Win: The Hurt Locker

I loved Avatar. It was a stunning visual and movie going experience, but The Hurt Locker is a film that you hold onto. It effects you, the way you think, the way you act.  In an interview, Jeremy Renner talked about the dangers of film such a realistic war movie that took the cast and crew so close to enemy territory. He told stories about being shot at, about having boards with nails thrown at them. This is brave filming at its finest.

The Rest:

Best Animared Feature: 

“Coraline” (Focus Features) Henry Selick
“Fantastic Mr. Fox” (20th Century Fox) Wes Anderson
“The Princess and the Frog” (Walt Disney) John Musker and Ron Clements
“The Secret of Kells” (GKIDS) Tomm Moore
“Up” (Walt Disney) Pete Docter

Will Win: Up

Best Cinematography: 

“Avatar” (20th Century Fox) Mauro Fiore
“Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” (Warner Bros.) Bruno Delbonnel
“The Hurt Locker” (Summit Entertainment) Barry Ackroyd
“Inglourious Basterds” (The Weinstein Company) Robert Richardson
“The White Ribbon” (Sony Pictures Classics) Christian Berger

Will Win: Avatar, hard to pick against it in a technical category, although Inglorious Basterds definitely has a shot.

Best Foreign Film: 

“Ajami”(Kino International) An Inosan Production Israel
“El Secreto de Sus Ojos” (Sony Pictures Classics) A Haddock Films Production Argentina
“The Milk of Sorrow” A Wanda Visión/Oberon Cinematogràfica/Vela Production Peru
“Un Prophète” (Sony Pictures Classics) A Why Not/Page 114/Chic Films Production France
“The White Ribbon” (Sony Pictures Classics) An X Filme Creative Pool/Wega Film/Les Films du Losange/Lucky Red Production Germany

Will Win: The White Ribbon

Best Documentary: 

“Burma VJ” (Oscilloscope Laboratories)
A Magic Hour Films Production Anders Østergaard and Lise Lense-Møller
*“The Cove” (Roadside Attractions)
An Oceanic Preservation Society Production Nominees to be determined
“Food, Inc.” (Magnolia Pictures) A Robert Kenner Films Production Robert Kenner and Elise Pearlstein
“The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers”
A Kovno Communications Production Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith
“Which Way Home” A Mr. Mudd Production Rebecca Cammisa

Will Win: The Cove

Best Film Editing: 

“Avatar” (20th Century Fox) Stephen Rivkin, John Refoua and James Cameron
“District 9″ (Sony Pictures Releasing) Julian Clarke
“The Hurt Locker” (Summit Entertainment) Bob Murawski and Chris Innis
“Inglourious Basterds” (The Weinstein Company) Sally Menke
“Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” (Lionsgate) Joe Klotz

Will Win: Great movies are made in the editing room, so the best film will win for best editing, The Hurt Locker

Visual Effects: 

“Avatar” (20th Century Fox) Joe Letteri, Stephen Rosenbaum, Richard Baneham and Andrew R. Jones
“District 9″ (Sony Pictures Releasing) Dan Kaufman, Peter Muyzers, Robert Habros and Matt Aitken
“Star Trek” (Paramount and Spyglass Entertainment) Roger Guyett, Russell Earl, Paul Kavanagh and Burt Dalton

Will Win: Avatar

Best Sound Mixing:

“Avatar” (20th Century Fox) Christopher Boyes, Gary Summers, Andy Nelson and Tony Johnson
“The Hurt Locker” (Summit Entertainment) Paul N.J. Ottosson and Ray Beckett
“Inglourious Basterds” (The Weinstein Company) Michael Minkler, Tony Lamberti and Mark Ulano
“Star Trek” (Paramount and Spyglass Entertainment) Anna Behlmer, Andy Nelson and Peter J. Devlin
“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” (DreamWorks and Paramount in association with Hasbro, Distributed by Paramount) Greg P. Russell, Gary Summers and Geoffrey Patterson

Will Win: Avatar

Best Sound Editing:

“Avatar” (20th Century Fox) Christopher Boyes and Gwendolyn Yates Whittle
“The Hurt Locker” (Summit Entertainment) Paul N.J. Ottosson
“Inglourious Basterds” (The Weinstein Company) Wylie Stateman
“Star Trek” (Paramount and Spyglass Entertainment) Mark Stoeckinger and Alan Rankin
“Up” (Walt Disney) Michael Silvers and Tom Myers

Will Win: Inglorious Basterds

Best Costume Design: 

“Bright Star” (Apparition) Janet Patterson
“Coco before Chanel” (Sony Pictures Classics) Catherine Leterrier
“The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” (Sony Pictures Classics) Monique Prudhomme
“Nine” (The Weinstein Company) Colleen Atwood
“The Young Victoria” (Apparition) Sandy Powell

Will Win: The Young Victoria

Best Make-Up: 

“Il Divo” (MPI Media Group through Music Box) Aldo Signoretti and Vittorio Sodano
“Star Trek” (Paramount and Spyglass Entertainment) Barney Burman, Mindy Hall and Joel Harlow
“The Young Victoria” (Apparition) Jon Henry Gordon and Jenny Shircore

Will Win: Star Trek

Best Original Song: 

“Almost There” from “The Princess and the Frog” (Walt Disney) Music and Lyric by Randy Newman
“Down in New Orleans” from “The Princess and the Frog” (Walt Disney) Music and Lyric by Randy Newman
“Loin de Paname” from “Paris 36″ (Sony Pictures Classics) Music by Reinhardt Wagner. Lyric by Frank Thomas
“Take It All” from “Nine” (The Weinstein Company) Music and Lyric by Maury Yeston
“The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart)” from “Crazy Heart” (Fox Searchlight) Music and Lyric by Ryan Bingham and T Bone Burnett

Will Win: The Weary Kind

Best Original Score: 

“Avatar” (20th Century Fox) James Horner
“Fantastic Mr. Fox” (20th Century Fox) Alexandre Desplat
“The Hurt Locker” (Summit Entertainment) Marco Beltrami and Buck Sanders
“Sherlock Holmes” (Warner Bros.) Hans Zimmer
“Up” (Walt Disney) Michael Giacchino

Will Win: Up

Best Art Direction: 

“Avatar” (20th Century Fox) Art Direction: Rick Carter and Robert Stromberg
Set Decoration: Kim Sinclair
“The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” (Sony Pictures Classics) Art Direction: Dave Warren and Anastasia Masaro
Set Decoration: Caroline Smith
“Nine” (The Weinstein Company) Art Direction: John Myhre
Set Decoration: Gordon Sim
“Sherlock Holmes” (Warner Bros.) Art Direction: Sarah Greenwood
Set Decoration: Katie Spencer
“The Young Victoria” (Apparition) Art Direction: Patrice Vermette
Set Decoration: Maggie Gray

Will Win: Avatar