Can I do this?

Look! I'm still writing in this blog.
Am I allowed to do this? Does anyone care? I don't particularly know. As far as I'm concerned, the only people who look at this were my former classmates, and the occasional person from Canada or Russia. Or my former teacher. Hell, I don't know.
My test scores haven't shown up at my college yet, even though I have sent them. What is weird is that my junior year scores don't show  up, but my other years's scores did...I'm sure it will all work out all right in the end. I can't see all those years of work in school add up to being denied due to a late test score. I just don't get it.
I rode my bike to Monterey a few days ago, that was crazy.
My front shifting on my bike is giving me issues though. (right now is where I debate whether to get too detailed in my shifting analysis, because the imaginary people who may or may not read this post won't understand it) My crankset is a compact, so the BCD is 110mm, but I have a 38t inner ring, because I like that bigger inner ring (oxymoronic, I know). But this inner ring is really just a bmx chainring stuck onto my crank, and I'm sure it's not intended to be used like I'm using it. But finding 110 bcd chainrings in a 52/38 combination is difficult, and I don't particularly want to buy a standard crankset, even though having a 53/39 would be awesome.
Whatever. It works for now.

Last Post Before the Exam

          I chose a question that I thought looked difficult to answer; 2010 Form , question 2.

I believe I would have mainly focused on the descriptions of the physical lands and the descriptions of the people who live in the Midwest, because it is this contrast/comparison that keeps the reader's attention. Also, because the Midwest is talked about in a relatively negative way, it serves to show exactly what the author's elder's were excited for when they immigrated to America. They seem to be content with being allotted this land, even though the author describes it as vast and dull, with little things to do, and little people running about.The geometry of the states is brought up more than a few times, most likely to represent the dullness of the Midwest in the author's perspective.
The essays that did well focused on how "bad" the land was seen to be by the people who first uncovered it, but showing the actual people the environment created with respect, as they had to have been raised in such a land that was previously thought to be terrible and vacant. Juxtaposition was important; comparing the Midwest to something else--either the people, or another land.
I might not have done very well, but at least I would have gotten a decent part of the juxtaposition.

Poisonwood Postmodernism?

          Apparently, the world was "modern" up until the end of World War II. Until this point, everything regarding literature was well defined and rounded out, with not too much leeway for crazy structural exploits or styles of writing the plot of a novel.

It was as if we got back from the war and were like: "Man, this novel should have an ending"

                                                                           "Nah...it doesn't need one..."

So, postmodernism essentially just allows people to do weird stuff with books that hasn't really been done before (at least in the era when that book was written, as I'm going to assume the definition of postmodernism changes depending on it's precursor (modernism).

The Poisonwood Bible exhibits more than a few of these characteristics. For one, it is written after the war, and the time period it is reflecting on is the area around 1960, with the Congo's independence being a big deal.

But, postmodernism really is seen in this novel mainly by the use of narrators (and how there aren't numbers to the "chapters," but I' don't think that is nearly as significant). Kingsolver uses multiple narrators in this novel, which adds a form of insight and depth to this particular story, which is not seen very often in the other great literary works from the time period when it was written. While most novels that we cover in our English language/literature and composition classes during school focus on a main character, this book, with it's narrators, doesn't seem to focus on any one person, but rather the sincerity of the family as a whole, which allows the story to gather insight from many more sources than what most novels are capable of. A good example is how multiple people mention the poisonwood tree, and how the novel is able to gain insight from each child and their experiences with the tree, either personal or watching their father handle it like a dumb American.

Heart of Darkness vs. Apocalypse Now

          Of course there are lots of differences between Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now. Lots. Well, one can always just say that the stories differ in settings, main character, plot (only to an extent), and all around "skin".

          "Skin" is a word that I would like to describe the difference with, before I talk about my single difference that I thought was most prominent (mostly because I'm sure someone else will write the same thing, and this first part might be somewhat original). When I say that the stories are the same, but the skin is different, I mean that the superficial details have been changed, but the overall meaning and story are nearly identical. Like two guitars that are identical, sound the same, and are made of the same components, but one has a clear-coat finish that allows you to see the flame of the maple wood that it is made of, while the other has a thicker, white lacquer that fades into grey, and then black around the edges. Or, perhaps a West Point lanyard and a UCSC lanyard; they both accomplish the same job, but look entirely different, and could even possibly carry a different meaning to them (I say this because I'm not sure if Apocalypse Now could be used as anti-Vietnam War type propaganda). For what it's worth, these are nearly identical stories told in two different mediums, and the war aspect of Apocalypse Now lends itself to more of a movie medium.

          The difference I selected was the effect on the native population. In Heart of Darkness, Conrad portrays the natives as objects and they die from overwork and guns and other things by a conquering people. In the movie, the natives seem to be viewed as more of a people, than objects. Although they still are slaughtered by guns and trigger-happy folks high on LSD, because the setting is much more modern. Comparing the Belgian Congo over a hundred years ago to a war zone in Vietnam that is still in recent memory for some living people will present major differences, simply because the technology available to the men at the time is so much greater. No native killed in Apocalypse Now died because of overwork, no, they all died because of a gun, or a sword, or a bomb, or an explosion. I believe it is the seriousness of the novel that forces the movie to portray the vicious deaths in this manner.

Heart of Darkness Trouble?

          Throughout Heart of Darkness there have been some sections or passages that leave me really confused. Yes, yes, I know that sounds really lame, and "confused" might not be the perfect word to describe how incredibly dumbfounded I am at points, but seriously--some parts of this book leave me with no clue as to what is being described or what is going on.
          Take page 109 for example.The big passage actually starts on the bottom of 108, and it doesn't even specifically state who is talking. I just have to assume that the speaker is Marlow, narrating his trip on the river to find Mr. Kurtz. But wait! They haven't told us that yet, so we don't understand what he is doing. He then talks for about 3/4 of 109, about things that I just don't understand. It's this type of odd writing that my brain dies on, because context clues are sort of non-existent. I just don't get it.
          Sure, I understand that he is describing a scene from his boat, and he is describing the African men he sees from the boat, and he describes them as human...and then says they aren't, and then goes into this two paragraph chunk of stuff that I don't understand, and then compares the men to a dog. Or maybe I'm missing something?

Juicy Quote

"They were conquerors, and for what you want only brute force--nothing to boast of, when you have it, since your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of the others. They grabbed what they could get for the sake of what was to be got."

There are two parts of this quote that really grab my eye. The first is the part where "strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others," really prods at the idea that the men in the Congo (white men, of course) felt the "power" they had there because there was no real resistance. This would be increasingly easy to see upon analysis by someone visiting there...like Conrad...

The second is the "for the sake of what was to be got." Because essentially, that really sums up the point of a white person's influence in the Congo. Because there wasn't really a downside to exploiting the Congolese (at least, to the white folk).

Chapter 12: "David and Goliath"

          This chapter introduces E. D. Morel, who finally puts a dent into Leopold's ghostly armor. Morel worked for a shipping company that Leopold used. When he discovered the atrocities that were committed in order to get the goods that his company was shipping, he found the urge to publicize them. Assuming Leopold had a lot of shipping, Morel was asked to keep quiet more than a few times; offered bribes and really nice jobs in different areas. Morel wasn't wealthy, nor could he just quit his job and attempt to use his journalism full time.
          But he did, and he developed his own publication, West African Mail, which had specific sections devoted to exposing the atrocities in the Congo. Originally, he used pen names, but he rose to become the most outspoken critic of Leopold's exploits. This is where he differed from other critics; he had a fanbase. People came to him with stories and information, even people who were supposed to be on Leopold's side. This was especially notable when the letters for the missionaries, who had their own mail service that was not censored by Leopold's men, because their letters were the most horrifying. Morel so far is the most successful guy in doing publicity damage to Leopold, because he got the situation onto the minds of members of Parliament.