Can you guess that style?

           Like what you build, build what you like. A statement to live by, for laziness in the grand craft of architecture is responsible for robbery and other crimes. A statement to live by, for, when the footsteps come and the robbers are there to take what is not theirs, laziness in the grand craft of architecture will be devastating. 

            There were three brothers, and each was presented with an opportunity to use architecture to create a home. Being wealthy men of business, they bought the materials they needed to fit their designs. The first brother, went to the local farmer, and paid him a handsome dollar for a handsome roll of hay. The second brother, being a man of business but also a man of nature, went to the forest and searched for many sticks. He found sticks, but most were as thin as thread, and all were as weak as the as the mind of the man who picked them as building material. However, the third brother, a man of superior intelligence and of intellect far greater than his peers, used an orthodox material: bricks. Had the other two brothers been prophetic, perhaps they too would have done their do diligence, and do away with laziness in the grand craft of architecture.

            They, being wealthy men of business, built their homes of grand design in a well-respected neighborhood, yet the footsteps were still coming after them. On the day succeeding the day in which their homes were built, the footsteps arrived. It was Mr. Wolf, and he, being so humiliated from previous business dealings with the three brothers, sought his revenge through unprecedented methods, and he, having noticed them crossing the countryside with their materials, walked to the doorstep of the first brother, whose was made of hay. He yelled, “Let me in! I demand that you repent your actions, and therefore give me compensation for what you have humiliated me for.”

            The first brother shouted back, “I shall never let you cross my threshold. Go away!”

            “Then I shall knock your house down with the force of my punch.”

            He punched the house, and, being so grandly designed, it crumbled. The brother lay there dead as a result.  Mr. Wolf proceeded to the second brother’s grand house of sticks, but he too refused to let him in, so he, with great force, destroyed his home as well. The second brother lay there dead from the collapse. Mr. Wolf had one more brother to exact his revenge upon; however, the third brother was a man of intellect, and he built his house out of brick, a material too sturdy to punch. Mr. Wolf was also a man of intellect, however, so he made the shrewd observation that the third brother had created a chimney. He climbed onto the roof of the house and dived down the chimney with the utmost confidence in his plan, but the third brother, as if he were prophetic, created a fire at the bottom of the chimney that burned Mr. Wolf. He ran around inside the house with his clothes on fire; he begged the third brother for forgiveness, and implored him to extinguish the flames. He did oblige, but this he said to him: “Leave my house, and never return. If you do, I might not be so kind.”

            Mr. Wolf left humiliated by him once more, but there was nothing he could do. The brother was a master at the grand craft of architecture.

It's a Brave New World Out There

How can he reject the comforts and the happiness in London? How can he, John the savage, possibly think it is better to live secluded in a lighthouse than in the civilization of the World State? I presume it is not too insane to comprehend, after all I'm not an Epsilon Semi-Moron. The savage grew up away from this perfect society. He grew up in a society that is, well, savage. A place where unhappiness and unorthodox behaviors are the norm. For him, coming to a civilization so radically different from his must have driven him to madness, causing him to destroy all of the Deltas' soma rations.
I understand why he went mad, but why did he want to a secluded lighthouse and run away from the social stability the World State offers. What does he expect to achieve being in a lighthouse? Perhaps religion and Shakespeare are to blame. He recites Shakespeare like we take soma; that is what makes him happy. Oh yes! I remember now! He said, "I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin" (Huxley 215). For him, poetry and God take priority over comfort and stability. To him, freedom is the ability to read Shakespeare and believe in God. It is strange to think of freedom in this way. After all, in the world state, we feel free the pains of social instability that poetry and God create. As I explained to the savage earlier, "[Shakespeare and religion] are symptoms of political inefficacy. In a properly organized society like ours, nobody has any opportunities for being noble or heroic. Conditions have got to be thoroughly unstable before the occasion can arise" (Huxley 213).
Although we are in very different positions, the savage and I are similar in some ways. We both have read the complete works of Shakespeare, and we can both quote it by heart (however the savage has let the words corrupt his mind). In addition and more importantly, we both have been presented with a major choice in our lives; however, we each picked a different path. I delved too far into my sciences. I challenged too much conventional wisdom, and I was too good at my work, perhaps like Mr. Watson is too advanced for this society. At any rate, my work questioned conventional wisdom, and such questioning would create instability. Thus, I was offered a choice, continue my work on an island away from civilization and surrender comfort, or surrender my studies as a scientist so I could have the opportunity one day to become a world controller. The savage had a similar choice: give up poetry and God for stability and happiness, or give up happiness for poetry. Obviously, our choices have lead us on to very different paths.
He is a failed experiment, like the one at Cyprus. I granted him and his, dare I say, mother permission to enter the World State, I was interested to see how a savage would cope being part of a new society. I hypothesized that, because he was familiar with our society already, he would be able to adjust. However, Ford knows that I was wrong! If he could not adjust, I conclude that trying to civilize other savages would prove just as bad, if not worse. Although, this experience has given me a little rush, a little reminder of what it was like to be a scientist. Oh get a hold of yourself, Mond! For Ford's sakes you know that you gave up experimentation for good reason! It causes instability.
How about the unorthodox Bernard? I haven't given much thought to him. He is quite an odd fellow. I guess it was the alcohol that got in his blood-surrogate.
But I digress. There is no reason to dwell on the past. After all, the books and culture of the past are banned from our perfect society.

Frankenstein: Rational and Romantic?

      Mary Shelley's novel, Frankenstein, is an interplay of rationalism and Romanticism, but rationalism is clearly condemned by Romanticism. Victor spends years studying chemistry and anatomy, and as he tells Walton in the frame narrative, "[he becomes] capable of bestowing animation upon lifeless matter" (Shelley 31). However, his intense determination to find the secret of life leads to his downfall as the monster that he creates leads him to seek nothing but revenge on the monster. Shelley's story serves as a cautionary tale against rationalism, and the frame narrative with Walton, the arctic explorer, exemplifies the cautionary element because Victor tells his story as a cautionary tale himself. Victor, before he relays his story, warns Walton, "'You seek for knowledge and wisdom, as I once did; and I ardently hope that that the gratification of your wishes may not be the serpent to sting you, as mine has been... I imagine that you will deduce an apt moral from my tale...'" (Shelley 13). Victor warns Walton that knowledge might be the serpent to sing him. Shelley warns her readers with a cautionary tale just like Victor warns Walton with the same tale. Therefore, Victor's story of his downfall is an expression of Mary Shelley's condemnation of rationalism.
      The monster, however, is not rational. He only uses his emotions and, preferring irrational actions to rational ones. For instance, when the monster encounters Victor's brother, William, he becomes enraged and irrational, killing him without hesitation: "'Frankenstein! You belong then to my enemy- to him I have sworn eternal revenge; you shall be my first victim'" (Shelley 102). Moments later, he kills the boy by strangling him. The monster commits the murder, and the murder of Victor's other loved ones, solely out of revenge and hatred. The monster commits irrational crimes in contrast to Victor's rational nature.
      The idea of these two characters resonates so clearly in popular culture. Almost everyone, even before reading the novel, knows the idea of Frankenstein. One reason for this might be because of the essential questions the novel raises: What is life? What makes one human? These basic yet essential questions are thought-provoking and make the reader wonder about human existence. Who is more human: the monster who seeks companionship and lets his emotions control his actions, or Victor who uses his reasoning and rationality drive his actions as he questions the very nature of life and death?

Work Cited

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein. New York: Dover Publications, 1994. Print.

The Simplistic Style of The Sun Also Rises

      Ernest Hemingway uses very simple sentences in his novel, The Sun Also Rises. The style is very effective at enhancing the reader's experience because it allows the reader time to stop and think. In chapter fourteen, Jake contemplates how nothing in life is free: "I thought I had paid for everything. Not like the woman pays and pays and pays. No idea of retribution or punishment. Just exchange of values. You gave up something. You paid some way for everything that was good" (Hemingway 119). The syntax Hemingway uses is quite unique. Most authors like to use more complex sentence structures, dazzling the reader with their use of the english language; however, Hemingway often times does not write in complete sentences, electing to use a period where a comma should be used. The use of period, while technically not correct grammar, is most definitely beneficial to the reader. He or she is given time to stop and think about what is happening in the novel, making it very easy to comprehend the content of the novel. Other authors such as Jane Austen and Charles Dickens often times use sentences that are long and difficult to comprehend.
      In addition, Hemingway's simplistic style effectively puts vivid images in the reader's mind. In chapter twelve, when Jake is in Burguete with Bill and Harris, they walk outside to go fishing. Jake describes the scene: "It was beech wood and the trees were very old. Their rooms bulked above the ground and the branches were twisted... The trees were big, and the foliage was thick but it was not gloomy" (Hemingway 94). Hemingway does not use any metaphors or similes or any device that an author would use to create imagery. He simply uses adjectives, only describing the trees as "big"and the branches as "twisted." The reader can build off the simple adjectives and create a scene of his or her own. If Hemingway used more complicated language to describe the scene, the reader would have less free will to create a scene of his or her own.
     

The Wifi Also Matters

      Cohn and I were walking down the streets to meet Brett at the cafe. The roads were filled with angry cab drivers, and the buildings rose high and tall. We decided to walk instead of taking a cab. There was typical New York traffic. 

      I saw Brett sitting under the canopy outside. The sun shined behind me, and her face was gleaming in the light. She had a beautiful face. Cohn and I sat down with her.

     "It's beautiful out isn't it?" I said to her.

     "It is, and the wine makes it so much better."

      Cohn said, "Wine makes any day better."

      "I'm tweeting that."

      I pulled out my phone but I couldn't pull up twitter, but it wasn't working. And then I realized why.

      "What the hell, Cohn!"

      "What?"

      "You brought me to a cafe with no wifi. Go to hell."

      I got up and left. I like Cohn and I love Brett, but the wifi also matters.

Works Cited

Hemingway, Ernest. The sun also rises. The Hemingway library ed. New York: Scribner, 2014. Print.

   

Wuthering Heights Reaction

      The story of Wuthering Heights is essentially split into two parts. In the first part of the novel, the relationships between Hindley, Heathcliff, Catherine, and the Lintons are the main focus. The second half of the novel focuses more on the relationships between the children of the first generation. Similar patterns, such as the personality traits of the characters and their actions, repeat themselves in the second half of the novel.

      In the first half of the story, Hindley is often times abusive to Heathcliff. In fact, after Mr. Earnshaw dies, Hindley forces Heathcliff to work in the fields like a common laborer. "[Hindley]... insisted that [Heathcliff] should labour out of the doors instead, compelling him to do so, as hard as any other lad on the farm" (Bronte 33). Years later, after Hindley has died, Heathcliff does the same thing to Hindley's son, Hareton. "... Hareton, who should now be the first gentlemen in the neighbourhood, was reduced to a state of complete dependence on his father's inveterate enemy [, Heathcliff]; and lives in his own house as a servant deprived of the advantage of wages..." (Bronte 139). Both of the men are compelled to degrade their inferiors by the same motive: revenge. As boys, Mr. Earnshaw favors Heathcliff over Hindley, and as a result, Hindley seeks to exact revenge on Heathcliff after Mr. Earnshaw dies. Heathcliff seeks revenge because of the way that Hindley treated him as a child, and he gets his revenge by degrading Hindley's son, Hareton, in the same manner as Hindley degraded him. 

      Other than the cycle of degradation started by Hindley and continued by Heathcliff, there are other ways in which Wuthering Heights repeats itself. For instance, one could observe the similarities in personality between the characters of the first generation and their children, the second generation. The characters Catherine and her daughter, also Catherine, are very similar (aside from their names being identical). Both are head-strong and not afraid to stand up for what they believe in. The second Catherine stands up for Linton by yelling at Heathcliff fearlessly and passionately. "... I know [Linton] loves me and for that reason, I love him. Mr. Heathcliff, you have nobody to love you... You are miserable, are you not? Lonely, like the devil, and envious like him? Nobody loves you- nobody will cry for you, when you die!" (Bronte 211). The first Catherine exhibits the same traits when she disobeys her elders orders by going out on the moors with Heathcliff. Similarities can also be drawn from Linton Heathcliff and Heathcliff. Linton, like his father is demanding and short-tempered, but, also, like his mother, Isabella Linton, he is frail, sickly and weak. He is so sickly and weak that he dies from a cold while he was a teenager and had just married Catherine Linton.

      Wuthering Heights is simply a novel split in two, with the second part repeating the patterns and personalities of the characters of the previous generation.

Works Cited

Bronte, Emily. Wuthering Heights. New York: Dover, 1996. Print.