Final Blog Post

I had read The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy a long time ago in middle school. A friend of mine had suggested it for me to read since he noticed that my exposure to good literature was limited (I didn't read at all). I recall on my first read through of this book being very confused about what was happening. I had never read anything quite like it before and at the time I had no concept of fantasy or science fiction. I believe I liked it, mostly being entertained by the idea of a sperm whale impacting a planet. The rest of the book, I felt I should like it, but didn't understand if I did or not.

Now, many years later, after listening to all twelve episodes of the radio broadcast it makes more sense. The story is much funnier and sillier than I imagined. I feel like there was a lot lost in book translation for me, especially with how much character each of the voices had. It really reminded me of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I suppose when I first read the book, I didn't know it was suppose to be a funny story full of sarcasm, I feel I must have read it very matter-of-fact like (as text in a history book).

Sarcasm really seems to be difficult in text form. I suppose a lot of how sarcasm is communicated is naturally through intonation and inflections in the voice, which makes this very sarcastic and colorful story perfect for radio.

I thought that it was a very clever commentary society (destroying Earth so that the ultimate question of the universe could not be discovered because it would put the last doctors, being psychologists, out of business) and had some fun bits relating to human psychology.

Overall, I enjoyed it immensely and I think I actually want to listen to the whole performance again.

April 18th Class - Meetings and readings

This week I had read a bit of Angel Dust Apocalypse by Jeremy Robert Johnson. It was a very interesting concept, the idea of being able to genetically modify your body, almost at will, to gain fame. As I read it, it really creeped me out and made me uncomfortable. I hadn't read the whole thing and only just started so I don't know how deep the story is, but that kind of future seemed disturbing... where people idolize such.... arbitrary things.... I guess it's that I don't understand it and I suppose it could be seen as a form of self expression. I didn't enjoy the quality of writing or subject matter of it, but I feel the tone may have been appropriate to the story being told. I mean, the main character doesn't sound very self reflective or deep... just surface stuff, skin deep... ahaha I guess that really does fit. Nothing like how someone like Murakami would write with long clever descriptions of things or build ups.... I suppose that is apples and oranges though.

April 11th Class - Literary Speculation

Not quite sure what to say for this one without sounding redundant. Again, one of my favorite points to take away was the idea that science fiction is not just limited to one kind of science. As seen with the Omelas story, it can deal with more things like anthropology and psychology. Rachel and the Nanny stories were fun what-if scenarios as well...

I suppose what I took away was that some artists hate being called sci-fi writers and want to just be known as writers. Why is sci-fi looked down upon and not given the same amount of merit and value? I suppose it's like that in any arts. Music, painting, ect. I went to the David Houle presentation/movie screening of Burning Man and one cool idea was "it's special, at least people are making anything at all, creating." I just see those "labels" (sci-fi-horror-fantasy) as a way to find something easier. We tend to like to categorize, put things in boxes as well. I guess it makes things easier for us. Things have to have a name, have to have a category. Why we tend to do that, I don't know. More so, is it such a bad thing to be "organized" in that way or would we have a deeper appreciation for arts if we didn't.

Maybe it doesn't matter at all? I'm not sure.

April 4th Class - Diverse Position Science Fiction

A very important idea learned today, science-fiction does not just deal with the sciences like rocket science, engineering, men in lab coats. It deals with all the kinds of sciences, like anthropology, human society and other kinds of sciences that I don't even know exist. I had thought it must deal with some kind of technological piece of equipment, explaining how warp drives or future machines and robots would work, but that is not the case. (I had questioned the short story "Bloodchild" as being sci-fi or fantasy because it didn't really seem to have that tech aspect) At it's core, science fiction seems to deal with and question "What if?" Really, "Bloodchild" did have science, a different kind if science, dealing more with society and a "what if" these insectoid aliens had this strange symbiotic relationship with humans.  Diverse position sci-fi really seems to go far with the what ifs and takes on multiple... positions. The story is told from the alien side and the human side (or whatever parties are involved) to give a more holistic view of things. It really blurs the lines of good and bad, things just are. We also talked about what makes fiction good, how it's a cultural thing that slow paced things will likely have a lower chance of being successful in our society and possibly how nostaglia and what a reader experiences first as being good (or at least their first good experience with a thing changes their expectations). The globe was turned upside down... or was it right side up? What way does the earth face and spin anymore, does it even matter? I dunno, I'm hungry, so I'm gonna go eat some breafkast.

March 29th Class - CYBERPUNK

I'm actually digging Cyberpunk, a lot more than I thought I would. I had recently seen the director's cut of Bladerunner and thought it was amazing. It dealt with ideas of... I suppose it's called singularity and what is it to be human. On the surface it seems like it could just be some kind of edgy story that happens to take place in the future, but it really deals with much deeper ideas like what it means to actually be living, to be human and not machine. I also read a bit of Monalisa Overdrive and was really enjoying it. For now it feels like a small collection of short stories and kinda mentions ghosts in machines. In class we talked about Neuromancer and the quote, "The sky above the port was the color of television tuned to a dead channel." We talked about how cyberpunk dealt with worlds in the near future, desensitized society, saturated in technology and being ruled by companies. Scary stuff. The rest of class we had group projects where we reviewed what we had learned in the previous two sections of horror and fantasy literature. Also, the projector would stop working randomly due to "ghosts in the machine..."

March 21st Class - Narratives From the Multiverse

This was the first class really getting into Science Fiction. Steiling was announced to be out for the rest of the year and Dr. Van Cleave would take over. We had David Houle come in and talk to us about how science fiction is relevant to the world today. I have heard Mr. Houle talk before, multiples time actually. Every time I hear him talk, it raises so many topics and gets me thinking outside the box. It's crazy, but he says that's his job and dam is he good at it. I had approached him with questions of what is it to understand, how do you understand things, hearing things but not understanding, and eventually went off into some zen Buddhism. I could understand his apprehension towards fantasy, he says it doesn't progress his life like science fiction does. He mentioned "you can escape from life, or choose to participate in it with the rest of us." He believes, and that history has shown that science fiction eventually becomes science fact, that writers, funny enough, the longer they write the more they stop writing fiction. The video with Delaney was interesting as well, just ways of thinking about things. How something as simple as how big women's pockets are can spur on all kinds of questions. I tried to read Babel17, but for what ever reason I couldn't quite get hooked in, and I read another short story on the side, I can't remember the name, but it had a giant man who washed up on shore and was eventually taken apart by the local residents. It was alright, but nothing really happened. Aside from the David Houle talks, the literature themselves, I found not to be very appealing. Maybe I'm just biased and like hearing David talk.

Spiritual Education in Fantasy

I am confused this week and I don't think I understand exactly how spiritualism in fantasy works. What I remember from class is having a realization and becoming frustrated with the education system. I guess this spiritual kind of education is something that is sorely missing from public schooling. That's a topic for another time I suppose, I just get angry thinking about it.

It just seems like people look at things too much in objective terms. They see Harry Potter as just magic and wizards on flying brooms and whatnot, or even The City of Lost Children as just being a trippy, crazy kinda movie. It's annoying how these things... how arts are kinda thrown aside and neglected belittled. A lot of people see things only as good if it makes money. These stories really, literature, art, they do so much for the growth of individuals, about what the hell it is to be human and having the freedom to live. It's so much more, so deep that I don't understand it, but I know it's there.

It's like learning to un-see things in painting. Not being concerned with painting an apple or the details of a person's face. It's about the shapes, the tones of things. Like in these stories, it's not the magic or the creatures. It's about exploring deeper meaning and subjects through the use of these things.

I still have a lot of questions about this, I'm a bit scatter brained at the moment.

Fantasy and Tolkien

So now we have just begun our start into fantasy. From what I can gather it's a pretty broad "genre." It can be set in almost any time and anything goes as far as subject matter (dragons, creatures, cities in the sky ect). What I found interesting is that fantasy is really a way to discuss topics that relate to the human condition from a 3rd person point of view. Well okay, maybe not all the time, but I think being able to tell a story that deals with such things are more interesting and lasting for me. Substance. Depth. Character. Challenging your points of view, what you think you know. Urging you to find out who you are and to understand. Outward social commentary and inward scrutiny of self. Fantasy seems like a good medium for that. I'm not sure why yet. I don't quite understand it, but I like where it's leading me. As far as Tolkien, The Hobbit is a fun story. I had read it years ago and saw the movie recently a few months ago. I found it interesting that he had taken such an interest in language and build his world from that. Also, reading the annotated version, thought it was interesting he thought maybe the plural of dwarf should have been dwarrow, not dwarves. The talk about the hero's journey was also very insightful. I had always thought the journey was a straight line, from point A to point B. Actually, it seems to be a circle, a cycle. Things go down before they get better and it can restart at any moment. I felt like the hero's journey tied directly into life, anyone's life. Going to school, learning a craft, love, anything, ultimately ending up at having the freedom to live. Can't wait to learn more about it.

Witches

Witches were probably my least favorite of the kinds of horror figures found in literature. In a lot of movies they always just seem to have a hint of omnipotence and can do anything they want, usually for malicious purposes. For example, they can injure or kill anyone at will in Dario Argento's Suspiria. Suspiria had the kind of witch I usually think of, the evil kind that usually wants revenge or power and seems to live forever. The movie itself was really a ton of fun to watch. The scenes were really nicely designed with how they handled lighting, the music was creepy and gave a really ominous and frantic vibe and the deaths were blood splatteringly good. Compared to Hiyao Miyazaki's Kiki's Delivery Service, it's a much different kind of witch. Both have the independent, strong female witch, just in different ways. Suspiria's witch is independent and strong in a brutal, rogueish kind of way, while Kiki's is closer to the coming of age independence, youth into adulthood and strong in that she can just go out into the world on her own and not be the property of anyone. I thought that was interesting how witches are earthly and have a closer connection to earth, where it's not about the witch, but the power that flows through the witch. It's easy to see why the Christians didn't like that as they saw the body as the source of all sin. It was also mentioned that having a child is the closest thing to coming close to nature and how women are associated with being more in tune with the world. The women part led into talking about women's sovereignty and power and intimate relationship struggles and how typically in society men are a bit engrained to try and own the women. People trying to own each other in relationships, men or women, is where the power struggles of a relationship can stem from and it was mentioned it is better to try and nurture a more intimate relationship and have a fair distribution of power and good communication.

Haruki Murakami - A Wild Sheep Chase

I've read a little bit of a previous Murakami novel before, "The Elephant Vanishes," and really enjoy the way he writes. The stories are just written in a way that flow really nicely and the way he describes things is so off the wall and colorful. I mean, reading Wild Sheep Chase was awesome. I was actually enjoying the act of reading and every page I turned, in my head I was shouting, "This is awesome!" One of my favorites parts was when he was describing how beautiful this girls ears were. It was something like how they radiated down the oblique face of time and emitted protean beams of light. Man, it's just a really enjoyable book, not quite a horror story, certainly not like Frankenstein or anything of the others read so far, but incredibly enjoyable. We also watched the Japanese ghost stories in class and I thought the whole concept of ghosts not really being good or bad was interesting. It was mentioned that it was a very western thing to label things in black and white, good and bad, where in Japanese horror there is a lot of gray areas. The ghosts are really not good or bad and nothing is really labeled as such. I was also having my mind blown over the idea that everything is an allusion and you can't be certain if someone is experiencing something the same way you are.

Anne Rice - Interview With a Vampire

It's interesting how the vampire has changed in literature. Anne Rice's "Interview With a Vampire" really seemed to have sparked the change in vampires going from evil, reclusive monsters, to... well... sex idols? I dunno if that's the right term, but reading the "Interview With a Vampire" had a lot of sexual overtones. For example, the character described being turned into a vampire comparable to falling in love, sleeping on top of another man in a coffin, how every sound like the wind blowing is pretty much described sensuously. I know I'm probably reading far too much on the surface, but I just can not get into something like this. The vampires just feel too much like normal whiny people with immortality and a really bad allergy to sun. From what we talked about in class, vampires seem to be a way to wrestle a bit with ideas of gay relationships and even having multiple relationships and why we care. The book itself dealt with people and identifying which character was in a submissive or dominant role as well as handling what would it be like if you really did live forever. Apparently, living forever is just as bad, if not worse than just dying. I thought the idea of the fanatics, the people wanting to be turned immortal despite the consequences was a funny addition. The novel in general though, I just couldn't get myself in it. Intellectually, I knew the author used the interview as a way to immerse the reader, similar to how Mary Shelley opened her novel "Frankenstein" with notes. I just wasn't buying it though, I had seen this trick before and maybe I just didn't want to give myself over to the book, despite the fact that it is not badly written. Maybe I was just uncomfortable with how sensual all the imagery was, and that I don't like the idea of a vampire (who I consider a very badass form of clever, mysterious, assassin, monster) turned into a homoerotic, woe-is-me, pretty boy. I guess it's cool that vampires can be used to explore such topics but, I dunno, I just don't like how perfect they have become. Now they don't even burn in sunlight, they just sparkle or some stupid shit. Bleh :F

Richard Matheson - I am Legend

I saw the movie version of "I am Legend" a few years ago before reading the book. I was really happy to find that the movie version and the original book Matheson wrote are different enough to stand on their own. I didn't imagine the character in the book looking like Will Smith, or even imagine him in the same kind of city environment. I found that I really enjoyed reading the book and became immersed in the world very quickly. One of my favorite parts about it was understanding how Neville felt and the emotions he was going through in his daily "routines." I thought the monsters in the book made it seem like they were pure vampires, but after talking about it in class, it really did seem like they were hybrid zombie vampire creatures. I was thinking about how we are seeing a lot of apocalypse themes show up lately, along with the popularity of zombies. I personally am not a huge fan of zombies, but I am interested in some apocalypse scenarios. The only other apocalypse book I read was "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy and possibly "1984" by George Orwell. Either way, kind of negative views on the future (a natural disaster apocalypse by nature, or an apocalypse created by man via nuclear war, or enslavement). I thought it was funny how it was kind of joked about being real preparation for a real apocalypse, and although a real apocalypse might not involve zombies, it does seem likely that it could happen and prepare us mentally. I'm sure for some people in Europe during World War II it may as well have been the apocalypse. Matheson's version of an apocalypse had a very interesting twist on it though that I very much enjoyed. The human being the monster and the vampires being the new order of things, in turn, Neville become legend, a creature of fiction.

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

I am ashamed to say that I have never read the original Frankenstein before. It was assigned once before in high school, but I never read it because I thought it was boring. Maybe I was too young and Frankenstein dealt with mature ideas that were above me to understand and sympathize with. Having read it now for this class, I did still find the book paced a bit slowly at times, however I found that I enjoyed reading it very much. Frankenstein himself is a very interesting and complex character. He explains why he feels the way he does about situations and life and I feel like I understand the actions he takes through out the novel. It is hard to explain, but I feel like this novel teaches a lesson about growing up and making decisions rather than just being a horror scare-fest like the cinemas make it out to be. It also deals with the ideas of what it is to be human and struggling with self. I found I really liked how intelligent the monster actually is and my favorite reference was the one in the notes at the beginning about the albatross from the Ancient Mariner. I had no idea what it meant to wear an albatross around your neck, but found it was like a curse or bad luck. It could also seem to represent taking responsibility for your actions, just like Frankenstein failed to take responsibility for the monster he created. I was also most interested to understand how Frankenstein really changed the whole horror genre of literature and more specifically gothic horror. The fact that Mary Shelley's mother was a radical feminist and how the church wanted more people to read. Most people reading at the time were middle class women (with servants) who corresponded through letters and had time to do activities such as reading. I can see how the opening of the book being entirely written through letters of correspondence really would bring people in and immerse them in this world.

Bloggin

This is my blog for Horror, Fantasy, and Sci-fi literature with Dr. Steiling.