Calvino

I like the idea of this novel, that the book leads you on how to read it. I've never read a book like that before, most just tell their story and let the chips fall as they may. In this case it was kind of interesting, the way the novel pushed thoughts into your mind. It made it much easier to get absorbed into the novel.

Normally I find I enjoy books better when they don't try to lead you places you wouldn’t normally go. Reading should be natural, not forced. 

I guess the idea for this novel was cool and I kind of liked it this one time, I don’t think I’d read a book like this again. 

Persisting Racism

“You don't start out writing good stuff. You start out writing crap and thinking it's good stuff, and then gradually you get better at it. That's why I say one of the most valuable traits is persistence.” ~Octavia Butler
Even though this quote doesn’t exactly pertain to the blog I am writing, I liked it and I think it pertains to the essays we are writing for our final papers. Writing takes practice; even Octavia Butler has to edit her work. First drafts are always shit.

Even if the whole quote doesn’t pertain to the blog, persistence does. In Octavia Butler’s novel Kindred, racism persists throughout history. Butler says, “The future of humanity will be like the past, we'll do what we've always done.” In Kindred Dana is a “slave” to the company she writes for and when she travels back in time, she is a slave to Rufus. Race defines who Dana is. Even though her education and intellect alter her experiences she can’t “rub off” (127) her skin tone.

In my sociology class, we have been learning about institutionalized racism. Even though the civil rights act in 1964 banned explicit forms of racism like segregation, racism is still engrained in the practices of American society. Much like Dana suffered as a slave to her job, while Kevin enjoyed job freedom and job security- situations like this exist in real life. The unemployment rate for African Americans is 16%, 4% higher than that of whites. In New Orleans, there is a 50% chance that African American men will spend part of their lifetimes in prison, whereas white men in New Orleans have less than a 10% chance of ever going to prison. Schools in mostly black neighborhoods are often worse than schools in mostly white neighborhoods, and adoption rates for black babies are half that of those for white babies. Why do these forms of institutionalized racism persist in American society almost 50 years after the Civil Rights Act was enacted? Is it like Butler said “the future of humanity will be like the past”? Or will this form of persistence eventually fade?

It's like we're back in 1st grade..

While discussing the ways in which to read this book in class, I became incresingly annoyed that this was a discussion we even needed to have. When I read a book, whether for class or for entertainment, I don't want the book telling me how to read it; I want to read the way I want to read.

I do agree with some of the class, however, that each book needs to be read differently in order to understand the concepts it is trying to get across. But in reading books that are very different from each other, I still find myself following my own personal reading style. It makes me so mad that Italo Calvino is trying to disrupt his readers reading habits with this unlinear and confusing book. It is like Calvino is doing this just to mess with our minds.

In Chapter 5, Ludmilla says something that I find interesting: "The novel I would most like to read at this moment should have as its driving force only the desire to narrate, to pile stories upon stories, without trying to impose a philosophy of life on you," (92). I believe that a books main purpose is to tell the reader a story, so, when reading, I do not want to have to figure out so philosophical point that the author is trying to make. I do not want to be left to put pieces of a book together to make it seem more logical- this is the authors job! Calvino is essentially trying to teach us how to read.. just like when we were in 1st grade.

Hate to love it, Love to hate it.

I find it very frustrating that I still can't tell whether or not I liked On a Winter's Night a Traveler. I know for a fact that I began to like quite a few of the stories, but before allowing myself to get too caught up in them, I prepared myself for the abrupt ending and anticipated disappointment of never finding out what happens.
I really want to be able to say I enjoyed the book, but to be honest, it pissed me off so much that I'm not sure I can get over my annoyance. I will grant Calvino the praise that the idea and structure of the book it down right brilliant - so brilliant, I hated it. I have never read a novel quite like this one, and its sure safe to say I wasn't fully prepared for this one.
I began writing this blog with honestly no direction, but a goal. I wanted to find out why I find myself disliking the book so much. It was a good book - it was very well written, easy to read, featured great characters and interesting stories. Then why do I find myself so ticked off with it? I've come to realize its because this novel didn't allow me to fall into the trap of manipulation. It literally prevented all chances of forgetting that it was a novel or getting caught up in the story. It was a novel that kept reminding me it was a novel.
On a Winter's Night a Traveler has come to show me that the power of literature is one thing that can honestly overcome human rationality and reason. This book was basically a tease since I never fully got what I wanted, aside from the realization that books have the ability to completely take over my brain.

Really?...Really?

Okay, so it’s time to be honest. When we first started reading “If On a Winter’s Night a Traveler,” I absolutely hated it. There was just something about the text that didn’t allow me to get involved. And when I’m not involved in a text….well….i usually stop reading it. But not this time. And I’m glad that I didn’t.

See, 260 pages after getting frustrated with the book, I had an epiphany and realize why I could not stand the book at first. Up until this novel, every book that I have read has had its substance at face value – i.e. I knew what I was reading – the plot, the characters, the setting, everything. And Calvino totally threw me a curveball with this text – and the discomfort made me automatically thrown up a guard a say “Ugh. I hate this book.”

As Pr. Schwartz said in reply to my whining – “Well, maybe the book hates you back.” But no. Because now I have an inkling of the book’s point. Calvino doesn’t care about plot summary or linear timelines or anything that makes up a traditional book. He is giving almost a social commentary on the way that people expect to read a book. He is informing me and the thousands out there like me that reading isn’t so cookie-cutter; every book doesn’t have to follow the cycle of rising action, climax, falling action, and all the other “literary terms” in between.

So I applaud you, Calvino. But it was like pulling teeth the entire time.

Sweet Dreams

Appropriately titled because of the fact that it is 2:15 in the morning; I couldn't figure out what EXACTLY I wanted to say for the blog and then I remembered the mini-conversation about dreams. When we were actively searching for symbols and metaphors during class, Morgan pointed out dreams and though I have to admit I was shocked that she actually found one that made sense to me (lol) it was a REALLY good one. It pertained not only to the book, but to the class as well. Dreams lie to you constantly, and they are blatant lies at that. Sometimes you have a dream about your best friend, and even though the person in your dream looks NOTHING like your best friend, you KNOW that's who it is supposed to be. I feel like that's what we have been doing. Even though the book says one thing we know it's another, but we don't let it bother us... usually. Now that we are further along in the class and more comfortable, we have that tendency to "go with the flow" and let the story be told to us. I actually really like that even though we're not getting so worked up over the stories like we were, we are still cautious and still question what we don't know.

A Reader's Manipulation

Upon beginning a novel, you relax and project yourself into events that exist within the text. As Calvino states, “once you’re absorbed in reading there will be no budging you.” You choose to begin the novel, but as the first sentence glides beneath your eyes, you give up your ability to make decisions because the new world you enter is not your own. The text is the driving force, compelling you to “follow events of pages and pages with passive resignation.” Yet, while you have no control over the passing events, you still “find yourself involved, despite yourself.” This is the manipulative world of the story, which is the basic plot to Calvino’s novel.
Calvino structures If on a Winter’s Night a Traveler in a way that demonstrates your lake of control. By beginning a new story every other chapter, Calvino erases the traditional method of storytelling, in which an ending resolves the main idea of the narrative. The absence of an ending evokes frustration, as it goes against your expectations. You feel the need to enter the novel to find a resolution, but you are bound to the text and unable to influence its structure. So you carry your frustration with you, which influences your understanding of the text. So, to represent you, the reader, Calvino inserts a protagonist called “Reader.” Throughout the novel, this character searches for the endings of the books he begins but is consistently disappointed. Your annoyance is reflected in him, as you both yearn to find some meaning to the plots of the many novels. Yet, neither of you are ever satisfied with an ending.
However, by the novel’s end, you realize that the plot was never the point of the story, and that you and “Reader” are chasing a main idea that never existed. Instead of a moral or lesson, the main idea of the novel is to demonstrate how a text manipulates the reader. Because the text is unchangeable, you are forced surrender your control on events, just as “Reader,” regardless of the frustration involved.

Sick of Calvino's Bullsh*t...but Ludmilla's cool.

Some people think of Calvino's manipulative style with discomfort, or awe, but it makes me personally feel a little annoyed. It's as if he's trying to distract the reader from the story by giving him or her the Reader as a character through which to live vicariously. To be honest, it feels a little like a cop-out. On page 137, Calvino introduces another distraction--Ludmilla, the Other Reader. He goes on for a page about the assumed existence of the Third Person, the Other Reader who must exist in order for the novel to exist. He goes on to presume all this stuff about the Other Reader who is the reader, and therefore creates Ludmilla from the character and the female reader. As annoying as his earlier shenanigans with the male Reader are, this play with Ludmilla is actually kind of interesting because it shows Calvino isn't just this chauvinistic loser who assumes the Reader is male. He mentions the Other Reader before she is introduced as Ludmilla, but this is the part where he addresses the reader as female. He goes on to address to the reader, posing questions and fleshing out Ludmilla as he answers them for the reader. He then comes back to the original Reader and reassures him that he hasn't forgotten about him. Then, he has the male Reader become jealous of Irnerio's familiarity with Ludmilla, and the reader sees both sides, both the jealousy and the indignation at it. But then he has them make love, which is just weird, like the reader is making love with his or herself. Then Calvino pulls the reader back into the safety of the story and the search for the novel, but the reader is left a little weirded out, and a little annoyed.

Coming Full Circle

I feel that If on Winter's Night a Traveler has been talked about enough in class. Miss Janelle even told us that she would usually never spend 4 days on a single text.  But the ideas that transcend the book are worth debating even still. I have never seen Jeremy so up in arms about an issue until I saw the furry in his eyes during last class.  Miss Janelle tells us there is only one way to read a text, and he throws a shit storm almost as if the Patriots got their asses kicked by the Saints the night before (ouch).  The idea that he had to read the text exactly how everyone else who had ever read it was ridiculous to him. It was almost as if that statement alone sucked out every inch of freedom this man had.  So why does it take a question of freedom to infuriate someone so much?  Calvino's novel takes away our freedom from the get go. He is telling us how to read our novel. Back the FUCK up Italo. I'm going to read how ever the hell I want. Then I'm going to finish this novel... right after you tell me I'm about to. How free are we really when we read these texts?  We're instructed to and then we do it. Then we participate in the discussion that we don't have a choice whether or not to listen to.  It's not necessarily a bad thing, however, I mean we pay to get schooled here. I know I like the class, and I have liked all the books. But I'm scared every time someone tries to rape my free will away from me. Please don't do that, I like making my own decisions. 

I seem to be living in a world of confusion these days.

Out of all the books we had to read in this class, I must say If On A Winter's Night A Traveler confused me the most. Although I give Calvino credit for his unique and experimental style, it simply does not work for me. I don't think I've ever been so confused in my life. Calvino's use of two different stories causes a sense of two realities. Throughout the book, I found myself getting lost between the two. I couldn't figure out which was the novel, which was outside information, or if there were two stories in one book. However, I do think this style of writing is perfect for this course. It challenges us to actually pay attention to what we're reading. Miss one detail and you are sure to be lost.By Calvino using these two different story lines, it is up to the reader to distinguish the truth from the lies. It is in this sense that I feel this novel emphasizes the idea that we have been discussing all semester: it doesn't really matter what's true and what's false. The point of the story is not based on reality vs. fiction, but on the subject matter and issues that are addressed.

Even though I did not like this book at all, and felt completely lost while reading it, I can't deny the fact that it serves a purpose in this class. Despite the confusing circumstances surrounding the plot, we shouldn't allow ourselves to focus on finding the truth. Sometimes not knowing is the best part.

If on a Winter's Night, a Castle

The end of If on a Winter's Night, a Traveler reminded me of The Man in the High Castle because the Reader realized that he was a fictional character in a book, just like Juliana Frink did.

The books share other similarities as well. They both have a fictional book (or 10) within them and a fictional author that helps to reveal that the novels are aware that they are novels and the characters become aware that they are fictional characters.

We discussed in class how Abensen's manner and speech reveals that he knows more about the multiple realities inside--and outside--Dick's novel than he is letting on. In If on a Winter's Night, a Traveler the role of Sillas Flannery is more obvious. He writes plans for the story of Reader and Other Reader in his journal and the Reader eventually, well, reads them.

The biggest difference here is that Juliana moves away from her fictional world while the Reader accepts his fate a character in a story and picks and ending for himself by marrying Ludmilla.

This begs the question of weither the Reader could have chosen any other fate than death or marriage. Juliana finished the fictional work within her novel (The Grasshopper Lies Heavy) and met Abensen, the things she set out to do, the things that could have kept her "trapped" in the (more?) fictional world. The Reader, by the end of the text, has not finished any of the ten novels he has started meaning he is still trapped within the confines of the novel, searching and reading.

Frustration

My title is "Frustration" because that is what I felt while reading this book. At first when Calvino was telling me what to do, I was annoyed because he sounded so sure of himself, but he wasn't really right all the time. What a tool.

But then I started to realize that there were two "yous," and that "you" wasn't really me. So then that was okay. But then whenever "you" started a story, it ended just when the action picked up! I was just as frustrated as "you" was in the story (though I'm not sure if I would have gone through as much trouble to find the continuation).

As the numbered and storied chapters went on, I started noticing that the real story was in the the numbered chapters. I think it just takes a while of reading before you can figure out what the "real" story is. And at least this one ended. I think.

I really wish this class was called "the art of manipulation," as was desired. This book would be PERFECT for any class with manipulation in the title, because I definitely felt manipulated for the entire thing. It's not until the last few pages that everything finally comes together, and even then, it doesn't totally make sense. Or I just didn't totally get it. Either way, I'm starting to think that maybe Calvino wrote this the same way we wrote our crazy little story.

who wants candy?

All of us enrolled in this class know that I have the attention span of a small animal, possibly a gnat. However, I am going to use this to my advantage and blog about the very beginning of the novel.

When I began reading this novel, I thought whoa, this guy is good. How could someone publishing a book in 1979 possibly know that I have to pee? It was then that I realized that I was going to be manipulated. I wanted to point out that not only we are manipulated into the novel because of the infamous "you" and you, but because of the way the author speaks to us. The first thing he does is make us comfortable, check up on ya...then BAM! You are married to some chick. He does this by attempting to find one thing to relate us to the novel...maybe its yoga, a room next door with a tv on, or the need to pee. He is the creepy man in the white van that says he has candy. It is because of Calvino's candy that we, the readers, allow ourselves to become the "you" presented in the novel. The art of manipulation can be achieved by the comfort presented to the audience.

If on a when a someone would do what?

You are about to begin reading Andrew Kozaites’s new blog. Relax. Concentrate. Maybe pick one of your favorite songs on Itunes. May I suggest Chopin? It’s good reading music.

Sit comfortably in your chair. Or lie on your bed if you have a lap top. Before you begin reading, get the everydays out of the way. Check your email. Fool around on Facebook for a few minutes. Catch up on the local news and sports.

Finally you settle on the Truth Lies and Literature homepage. You look to see who’s posted before this writer. You glance over their blogs, but really you came here to read this one.

The blog begins somewhere in a library computer lab. A young student is reading up on their literature class’s blog page. They search frantically for the post entitled “If on a when a someone would do what?” but come up with nothing. The reader knows it’s there. They saw it just last night when they glanced at the page. Perhaps it’s the computer.

Now where could this blog possibly be going? Does it have any real substance, purpose or meaning? Or is it that Andrew Kozaites is too lazy and opted to imitate Italo Calvino?

The reader goes to the next computer. Signs in. Goes to the Truth Lies and Literature page and finds the “If on a when a someone would do what?” post. They begin to read, but are soon distracted by the person sitting next to them.

I am using “Them” as a means of overcoming the ambiguity of the sexes, as well as the multiple readers that I am sure “you” all are.

They fall in love and get married. They are in bed and the reader still has the laptop with themselves. The one asks whether or not the reader is tired of reading this blog yet.

And you reply “Just a moment I’ve almost finished reading Andrew Kozaites’s new blog ‘If on a when a someone would do what?”

"you" are who you are

Another confusing book that we as the readers get drawn into. Up until the last page we are connected to the character in the novel. Just like Aura we are helping the story build and as the reader we make the characters. By becoming one of the characters to keep the novel and story going the reader must keep reading. By going with the flow you as the reader are kind of giving up. The author had a plan and you are leading right into it. The reader at some point needs to back off and put the book down to "save themself" from the book. By doing this the reader is no longer the character.
Also in Phillip K. Dick's novel Man in the High Castle the characters knew they were part of a story and not really a person in the world. When we take ourselves out of the novel the characters have to pick and decide what to do next. The last page of If on a Winter's Night a Traveller the character is stating he is almost finished with the book. At that moment we as the reader are too. We must take ourselves away from being involved with the charcter or we will be stuck inside the novel.
The ending is him going to marry Ledmilla but we don't marry her. The other ending would be him dying but we don't die just because we stop reading. This is when we are taken out of the novel. Our lives aren't changing like the character in the novel. We are finally back to being one and him another.

Calvino, what did you just put me through??

Calvino's If On a Winter's Night was an awkward and uncomfortable read for me. However, in no way am I criticizing Calvino's writing style. In fact, I dig the idea, not necessarily the experience, like liking the idea of staying home sick from school but not actually being sick. Calvino created several realities and worlds, as opposed to a single reality with a set plotline, a constant group of characters and a resolution to a problem. Calvino's creation was not an escape from our reality, but escapes from the reality he presents to us in his text.

The numbered chapters were difficult to read for me, as I don't usually read books written in second person. The feeling of being told what I am doing and not feeling I have control as a character is weird. The numbered chapters felt like I was reading on auto-pilot. I wasn't someone else experiencing these things; I was still me not experiencing going to the bookstore and picking up Calvino's newest novel, but it was still me at the same time. It was a truly interesting paradox but a rather weird experience. Also, the text took me on a quest that I could find no true solution to. I could not meet the objective placed before me; the book kept telling me that I couldn't find the rest of If On A Winter's Night A Traveler. The titled chapters were no better. I couldn't escape into a consistent reality like books I usually read. I was constantly thrown into something new. Eight stories were created, but not elaborated upon. All I could find was a sample of each. It was a tease.

Now, with my opinion aside, I'm fascinated by the artful technique through which Calvino developed his story. He created like eight different realities told by different authors with different styles, along with the reality which he forces the reader to experience through second person narrative. That's an incredible feat. It feels like Calvino created a novel not for the reader's enjoyment, but rather a test to the reader's capability as a reader. Calvino writes, "The world is so complicated, tangled, and overloaded, that to see into it with any clarity, you must prune and prune" (Calvino 244). This greatly parallels to us as readers, as we make clarity and sense out of the discombobulated mess Calvino presents to us. Calvino's If On A Winter's Night A Traveller could be the most annoying text I've read in this course and the most ingenious text I've read.

Let's talk about sex

We're all adults here, so let's not get coy. Sex is a HUGE part of If on a winter's night a traveler. The way that sex is portrayed in the novel might be a writing device, or might reflect the author's views on sex.

Throughout the novel sex is used, literally. The characters don't have sex, they are controlled by it or through it. Sex, then, becomes not the act of sexual intercourse but an act of domination which places a character completely under the thrall of another character. And most often the controlling character is the woman.


Calvino makes his female characters manipulative and conniving sphinxes who seek to control their destinies through the domination of a man.

Sex itself is used often in the "novel" chapters as a shock device. Within the story chapters there is no "normal" sex, no middle-of-the-road missionary, lights off, eyes closed style. There is a threesome, adultery, and manipulative exhibitionism. This gives us the sense of unreality that is prevalent in most of the story chapters. This unreality is a way to let us know that we are not within the reality of the "you."

In the plot chapters the sex is at first normalish, and then becomes and expression of rebellion. When you has sex with Ludmilla it is normal. When you has sex with Lotaria/secret-agent-chick it is an act of rebellion, it is a way for you to come into control of his life and is thus also a reflection of the domination sex in the other chapters.
The difference is that in the plot chapters it is you, who is male, that manipulates the sex for his own benefit. So he more aptly reflects the female characters in the novels that he reads. Randomly.

This portrayal of sex might also reflect Calvino's views on sex or his relationship with sex. But that gets into a) creepy and b) irrelevant territory. Instead let's focus on sex as a literary device. (Please god)

Sex plays a huge role in the story as a symbol of domination and manipulation. Yet we didn't even touch on it in class. Which makes me think "puritan morals" in really big hot pink bold letters.

Which amuses me.

Reading Is What's Important

I do not like this book at all. I found myself forcing my mind to concentrate on the lines on the page. Due to my attitude towards the book, I decided to look up information on Italo Calvino so that maybe I would understand his style of writing. I came upon biographical information that basically told me what I figured out from reading If on a Winter's Night a Traveler: Calvino is an experimental writer with a big imagination. Someone known for experimenting with his writing is expected to catch the reader by surprise; and Calvino certainly did that with me. Not only does he create two different "realities," but he also overlaps events/characters/ideas/facts within the realities/worlds (which confuses the reader even more). And as that wasn't enough, things that happen within the book itself happens to the reader (like never finishing a story). Because I didn't like this book I feel like I'm not a fit analyzer. But, I think that what Calvino wanted us to do with the book is experiment with reading. With the way he introduces the story already shows the reader that this book will require different reading skills from what we are used to (i.e. having a clear plot, having clear characters, having motives/goals, having a climax, etc.). And if that was Calvino's goal then I applaud him. It takes a brave person to take a risk and introduce the public to a totally different form of story-telling and expecting them to have an open-mind and be vulnerable to foreign things.

To read, or not to read? That is the question.

Where do I even begin? Well, I guess the beginning would be a good place to start. If on a Winter's Night a Traveler by Italo Calvino is unlike any other novel I have ever read in my entire life and I think that is why I like it so much.

So, while we're starting at the beginning of my thoughts about this novel, we might as well start at the beginning of the novel itself. In the first chapter, Calvino is giving the reader instructions on how to read this novel. He says, “Relax. Concentrate. Dispel every other thought. Let the world around you fade. Best to close the door; The TV is always on in the next room” (Calvino 3). I feel as though Calvino is giving the illusion that there is a way to read this novel. To somehow surpass the confusion and fog that he creates for the reader, when in reality there is not. In order to read this novel, one must suspend rational thought. They must let go of their past impressions or beliefs of what a novel should be or is supposed to be because that is not what this novel is. Calvino goes on to say on the first page of this novel, “Of course, the ideal position for reading is something you can never find” (3). Just as there is no position that one can find to read this novel, there is no particular strategy that one can prepare to take on what is to come on the following pages.

Calvino writes, “…[H]e is known as an author who changes greatly from one book to the next. And in these very changes you recognize him as himself” (9). In a way, I think that is why Calvino does not give a perfect map on which a reader can follow in order to make it further into the “story.” He is not only defining himself as an author, but he is also challenging the reader to look at his writing from a different light. He wants to make the reader not only look at his writing differently, but also look at reality differently. We are so trained to think a certain way and act a certain way that we sometimes forget to question why we are doing those things in the first place. That is what this novel is doing for us; it is forcing us to question our believed reality. For example, Calvino goes so far as to pose the question of why we read in the first place. He does this through the character of Irnerio when he says, “Me? I don’t read books!...It’s not easy: they teach us to read as children, and for the rest of our lives we remain the slaves of all the written stuff they fling in front of us” (49). Just as it is impossible for the reader to change the writing in Calvino’s novel, it is also impossible for us not to read it. In essence, we are all playing a role in this manipulation, whether we want to or not, and must understand that, but not fight it because in the end, I believe the reader gains insight into the art of story telling and rhetoric that they may never have understood otherwise.

Calvino, the trickster

"You're the sort of person who no longer expects anything of anything...from people, from journeys...You know that the best you can expect is to avoid the worst. This is the conclusion you have reached in your personal life...general matters, even international matters" (Calvino 4). This statement is the first illustration of the manipulation done by the author. How can a person, or the author in this case, tell you how to feel and what to conclude about the personal matters of your life? Does it not feel like the author is invading the personal privacy of your mind? Isn't the purpose of reading a book is to have your own imagination or interpretation of what your are reading? This manipulation that Calvino does throughout the book is what I dislike the most.

I was already told in class since Aura that this sort of manipulation will get worse by the time we get to If on a winter's night a traveler. I had no idea what to expect. I didn't know that it was going to be this bad to the point where it felt like I was being brainwashed to the point where I could not feel or think for myself about the book. What's even more annoying is that at some parts of the book Calvino interrupts my train of thought about the literature and slaps on a piece of "what you are suppose to feel now" section in the text, "You have not read about thirty pages and you're becoming caught up in the story...You are the sort of reader who is sensitive...just when you were beginning to grow truly interested...the author feels [to] call upon you to display one of those virtuoso tricks" (Calvino 25). Calvino just jumps in and tells you how many pages you have read and what sort of reader you are and exactly what you are feeling but he tells you what he is doing that is bothersome to me, as a reader. It is true that I do grow interested at the peak of the story and Calvino just ruins it by puting in a manipulation piece or just starts a new story. Clavino states from the first story of the train, " They've killed Jan. Clear out...Go to track six. Opposite the freight station. You have three minutes...Move, or I'll have to arrest you...The express arrives at top speed. It slows down...[and]pulls out again." And that's where the story ends. How can Calvino just leave you hanging and knowing that because you are awaiting for the fall of the climax just ramble on about the physical book itself (page number, words, and signatures). "The mistake occurred as they were binding the volume...each signature is a large sheet on which sixteen pages are printed" (Calvino 25). This sort of jumping around from text, the author's point of view, to cutting the story short and starting a new story is all confusing and gives me a headache.

By the time I got to the second story I let the the author's manipulation take over and I decided to to go with the book's flow instead of fighting it. At least by following the flow of the novel, reading the book would not be such a hassle. In the second story Calvino stated, "Today I saw a hand thrust out of a window of the prison, toward the sea...the hand seemed white and slender to me, a hand not unlike my own...nothing expect[ed] in a convict" (Calvino, 55). If I am not able to flow with Calvino's stories with my sense of correlation or flow it's best for me to incorporate my senses with his flow in order to comprehend Calvino's literature.

As the birds flock together so do the insane

*What follows is a brief tale written by the contributors to this blog, collectively. It follows loosely the patterns set forth in Italo Calvino's _If on a winter's night a traveler_ (1979/1981).

Contents

[1]

Oppression

[2]

Mother knows best

[3]

-------------

[1]

You are about to begin writing your new novel. The main character has brown hair, glasses, and a "what the fuck did I do last night" look on her face. Her name is Ellyn. She is extremely intelligent, beautiful, and funny. But it's a shame those qualities only lasted until the age of 5, when she took a turn for the worse... She was diagnosed with polio, and she distracted herself from her suffering by reading books. But, this didn't last for long, for as soon as she glanced away from the page the suffering would return and she could no longer read the story she had been reading. Its joy would be lost on her so... all those memories flooding back, weighing on her after so many years. But she knew she must go on...

Though if it was possible to return to the event, that one event that had started the chain of experiences that now pressed upon her, would she change it?

Her heart began to drum against her rib cage as she closed her eyes; the idea of this change overwhelmed her. She wants him, she sees the sweat trickle down his face, making his muscles glisten. In the heat of the moment, all rational thinking lapses, there is no turning back on what she knows will be a horrible mistake. In a flash she would be right back where she started. But how, where is she going?

She is heading towards a utopia of literature. She walks into the bookstore and heads to the nearest shelf. She picks up a book and leafs through the pages, trying to get a feel for the book. She notices the cover of another book on a table in a corner. This book now takes her body over and she embraces the author entirely. She becomes so entranced by his words that she desires him in all ways, at every moment of her loveless life. She desires nothing more than to become one with his body. Yet she knows she will never be fully satisfied for she in love with his words, not the man.
----------------

Oppression

My days are consumed by my mother's high pitched commands, concealing me in this damp basement. In my room lay a stack of papers--hope for a different means of life--protected by a paperweight, our chains of this land. If they were to find this stack of treason, surely I would be thrown in a cage forced to reside with the rats. And there sitting in that cage would be Ellyn, covered in dirt and mud, twitching at any inkling of sunlight that snuck through the cracks of the wall.

Unfortunately for those who caged her, Ellyn was really a code name for Max who had recently escaped from an insane asylum for having paperweight fetish. All the paperweights had to be removed from the asylum after Max was found in his room, rocking back and forth, stroking his... paperweight. He pondered on whether or not it was a good idea. On the one hand, the idea had potential benefits. However, the idea could also yield ultimate destruction. Could this young idea, this simple shoot of thought lead to our demise? Could this sinister paperweight that sits before us, really represent all the horrific memories I've tried to desperately to repress over the past 25 years? Can this weight bring us down?

No. We won't let it.
We will fight 'til the end.
Nothing will stop us.
This will be our time to change the country they spent centuries creating. No longer will we have to force our voices to speak what they instill in our minds. The paperweight has been lifted.

I am free.
I am no longer crushed under the brutality of control; I soar in the sky and cherish my freedom.
--------------------

[2]

You're in the café, getting your favorite flavored coffee when you spot a beautiful blonde reading one of your favorite books. You go over to her and read the top lines on the page, just to see which scene has grabbed her attention so absolutely. The story unfolding captivates you just as easily as it has captivated her; you must grasp to her chair in order to hold yourself up, you are so overwhelmed.

I am so overwhelmed. The story is interesting, but choppy. The scattered plot confuses me, or is there a plot? -- It does not matter. I want Ellyn. Fuck the other guy. I need her. But she doesn't care, not for me at least.

But I still have to try. She is the Other Reader. She understands. We work through our reading together, putting pieces together. We could spend our lives this way, except for how I read faster than she does. That's annoying. That's why we have to solve this mystery. But I still have to try. Nothing is ever what it seems.

How could such an innocent encounter end so horribly? Who knew this day would come so soon? It was a day you had waited for, and one you would not soon forget. How fortunate that your last day on earth was so blissful.
--------------

Mother knows best

Walking into the coffee shop my senses were over-whelmed by the scent of coffee. My friend smiled and waved ecstatically at me to join her. I made my way over and sat down across from her. As she started a conversation, I couldn't help but ignore her, getting lost by looking at the beautiful painting behind the counter. The painting was of a bearded man standing behind a desk. But what really struck me was what was on teh desk: a golden paperweight, seemingly glowing out from the painting. I felt as though I'd seen it before, and sure enough, as I looked down, I saw the paperweight on the counter, pinning a two-dollar bill down.

My life is like the money the paperweight holds. I am stuck--fiscally, emotionally, spiritually. My mother pins me down. No matter the attemps I have made--countless attempts, finding a job in these times is just a hard task. My life oppressed by my mother is one that seems everlasting. The job is the only thing that holds me down with my mother. I am trapped, there's no freedom. I constantly pace back and forth thinking of my escape--the escape that will kill me.

My escape will be one of legend, on to be the envy of prisoners everywhere. The _Count of Monte Cristo_ will pale in comparison to the masterpiece I will write of my escape. It is an original idea, and long after my death, I will be remembered for it. Maybe someday there will be a monument in my honor. Or maybe a few years after my death, it will be forgetton, as will I.
---------------

[3]

The misty, fictional world burst, and she returned to sharp reality. Her eyes became misty with the mere notion--could her beautiful fantasy be nothing more than fantasy? If this were all mere fantasy, where did that leave her?

It left her underneath the paperweight, struggling to escape. A deep scar resides on her left wrist, forever a reminder of her struggles. She stares in self-pity, remembering what made her do it in the first place. She's not sure if she will ever forgive herself for what happened. The guilt of it all consumes her. The scar is not all she is left with.

When she lies awake at night she can still hear all of the books in the store, screaming their stories out as they shrivel in the crackling flames. But she knows it had to be done--molotov cocktails were my only option. One day she will read this book and understand, for this book will never lead her astray and we will ride into the sunset together.

You have left the publishing house, without any answers and another weight of questions. You decide to return to the place this bizarre adventure began. As you're walking into the bookstore, you hear the shop owner laughing with a tall bearded man about a customer who fits your description that the entire literary world had conspired against. He was chose to dispense to you the continuous string of never ending novels so that you could never escape into a book again. You are outrages and begin to plot your revenge--to burn down the bookstore.

The only reason she did this was because of the showing of "You've Got Mail" earlier on TBS. She uses movies to escape from her reality. Fridays and Saturdays were matinee at Cinema 9, to which was a frequent visitor. It was there that she found comfort in the fictional lives of movie characters and escape from her real (reel?) life. Even though she wanted to stay in that fictional world, she knew she had to come back to reality.

Remember Last Xmas, An Exquisite Corpse Tale

You are about to begin writing your new novel... You're treading in dangerous waters! You don't know what could happen from here. But you are aware that this is the last time you will read with both eyes, before they melt away like ice on a summer day...

They need to finish all the work in the yard. The leaves had been piling up and the kids were anxious to jump into them. They had been gathered in the cold clear morning and lying in wait until the late afternoon sun began to dim. Their dreary eyes followed the sun as the horizon devoured it completely, leaving them in darkness. The sky became as black velvet with pinpoints of cosmic light, the new moon hung blank in the sky.

With the moon hovering above, you begin your mission. A pen in hand, you attack the blank page, and you're immersed in a new world. No sure where you now reside, you rush around in a frantic panic looking for signs of familiarity. The man on the corner of no help--he only laughs at you. He torments you for not knowing how to understand his response. I scream "I am sorry," but I hate you. You are a fat pig. Like a cop. All cops are fat pigs, even if they are not fat. It's a part of their job description.

You use your badge as a "freedom-pass," getting away with things the average person would not. You're not a hero. You're actions are meant to help, but often lead to worse outcomes. Do you remember last Christmas when you bought that girl those presents? Or even worse, last February... Well that was the last time you'll ever buy a girl a ferret for Valentine's Day. Even though that girl loved the ferret, the ferret hated her, and so did the monkey. But not the ferret. The ferret was kind. The wealth of animal life was astounding in its complexity and diversity. I saw a plethora of different animals. The Gorilla was my favorite; he reminded me of my father. The butterfly was my favorite; it reminds me of the complexity of the world.

Just when we become consumed with the shortcomings of our own lives, the tiny creatures of this world make us stop and realize our insignificance. But then when you look at the bigger picture you realize you are good enough. Everyone thinks they hold some kind of rank with everyone else, but really everyone is the same. We are all worm food... and begin again.

(*Note: the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect those felt by all the contributors on this blog.)

The End

Choose wisely (I TRIED TO POST THIS YESTERDAY IT DIDN'T WORK, HAD TO POST LATE! SORRY..)

***When I signed on yesterday, I wasn't able to post on the website. This had happened to me before, and usually with time it works again. Thats why I'm posting late!

The butterfly effect was a really disturbing movie, because not only was it kind of tragic, but it brought up the idea of multiple lifelines that we have. Each decision that we make brings a different outcome, in some cases a huge outcome that can change almost anything. Small decisions that we make in reality can lead to huge outcomes, and so one has to think, what really is the right decision? I seemed like the narrator could never get it right in the movie, Donny was a crazy freak, Lenny was super disturbed, or he had no arms. What is the right outcome, and is it Ashton Kutcher’s place to play god? I almost find it worse that after 8 years, when they pass each other on the street; Ashton freezes up, and knows he’ll never actually be with the person he loves. Overall this movie just really made me start considering the small choices I make, the little lies I do or do not tell. Putting aside the fact that time travel is real, the movies message was clear, choose wisely. Also, it made me think about all the "crazy" people in institutions; what if, just what if things like this actually happen? maybe all those crazy people aren't so crazy.

On a note about the endings, I really disliked the directors cut, just because I'm a sucker for a happy (or in this case a happier) ending. The fact that her miracle baby dies is so depressing. The fact that he makes sure he's never born is so depressing, I like the "we stay alive" ending.

Brilliant movie, crappy endingS

I watched The Butterfly Effect for the first time soon after it came out to rent. I had wanted to see it in theatres, but had been barred for my age.
Until today I'd never seen the theatrical ending. I find that neither ending is really satisfactory in bringing the story to a close.

The directors cut ending makes a gruesome sense in that it explains why Evan has no life line. According to that he was never born in the first place. However this leaves Kayleigh, Lenny and Tommy completely hanging in a netherworld of speculation.

The theatrical ending better wraps up the characters, but doesn't explain the reason that Evan has no life line. Perhaps it was a fluke? Perhaps the gypsy palm reader was a liar and a fraud? Either ending is completely unsatisfactory.

The movie itself however is brilliant. How many people wish that they could go back in time and fix the things that had gone wrong in their lives? or fix what had gone wrong in the lives that theirs touched? I know I would, but at the same time I wouldn't. What if things continued to go wrong, like with Evan, or what if the outcomes didn't really change?
The story reminds me of The Time Machine. No matter how many times the inventor goes back, his lady love still dies. Some things are just destined to be. In Evan's case things changed, but usually for the worse. He kept going back to fix things and ended up with the same crappy outcome.

Let's all refrain from messing with destiny.

Back to the Future Part II

After watching The Butterfly Effect, again, I could not help but recall the classic film trilogy Back to the Future. For this film, in particular, I related it to the sequel, which like The Butterfly Effect, dealt with alternate realities. This in turn, also reminded me of Man in the High Castle, which in itself was an alternate reality.

I’ve always been amused by alternate realities, the term alone is a bit of a conundrum. For cannot there only be one true reality? Is reality relative? Or is reality absolute? The first time I ran into an alternate reality was at a very young age, back when Doc and Marty returned to 1985, from their brief trip to 2015. What at first seemed like home and normalcy and Hill Valley, quickly proved to be something sinister and disgusting and Hell Valley. Circumstance had made Biff Tannen rich, powerful, and corrupt, and to everyone in the world, this was reality, but to the Doc and Marty this was not reality. So they return to 1955, so that they may set things back to the way they knew them.

There is an element of selfishness in this. They sacrifice Biff’s happiness for their own well being. Albeit Biff was an evil character, he has the right as much as anyone else to the pursuit of happiness. This reminded me of one of Evan’s final travels. He is in college, his friends are all happy, but he has no arms, and his mother is dying. He could have very well sacrificed his own happiness for others, but he did not do this. I suppose he was a flawed character.

But then again, perhaps no one really is flawed. Maybe it is reality that is continually flawed. It’s all a matter of perspective.

I had never seen The Butterfly Effect before we watched it in class, and I have to say; it scared the living shit out of me. It was twisted and weird, and it reminded me in a lot of ways of Memento. It kind of had the same underlying question: "If you couldn't remember the horrible things you did and/or witnessed, would you want to know what happened?"

In both movies, the main character had memory problems and spent the movie trying to put things together using the notes they left for themselves. They had different purposes though. Leonard wanted revenge, while Evan wanted to fix everything and was willing to sacrifice himself in the process.

Another thing I thought this movie seemed to bring up was the idea of nature vs. nurture. I remember learning in psychology the idea of whether people were born evil or if the way they were raised had an effect on their personalities. This movie clearly said that it was nurture that decided it, the most obvious example being with Tommy (my dad's name is Thomas Miller so it was super creepy seeing his headstone). In all the different situations, Tommy was either completely evil or a Jesus freak. Complete polar opposites, just so we are sure to notice the differences. If he was raised by his dad (who was really hard on him) he turned evil, but with his kind and loving mom he was religious and saintly.

Same with Kayleigh. Depending on how she was raised, she ended up being either a sorority girl (who obviously made it to college) vs. a waitress or crack-whore. If she was intelligent enough to get into college, then that shouldn't have changed unless her dad's version of raising her was really that horrible.

"Decisions to decisions are made and not bought, but I thought this wouldn't hurt a lot -- I guess not."

Having never seen The Butterfly Effect before this class, I was unsure of how well it was going to fit in with the course. I had heard plenty of the story, with the majority of the reviews being pretty negative. Yet after watching it myself, the movie isn't necessarily pleasant to watch, but is perfectly fitting for the course in the sense that it made me question reality. It made me look at things I never think about, and observe it from different possibilities.
The movie put forth different courses, paths, and possibilities one life could have, and it left me sitting in my seat, freaking out over which one would finally be the truth. Every decision Evan made had a long-lasting effect on his life. The movie wrapped me up in each possibility, leaving a little lost and confused as to which path in life was the right one -- the truth.
It made me think about all the choices made in my life, and how different life would be for not only me, but everyone in my life. I don't necessarily believe the decision between Dr. Pepper and Coke at dinner last night would have too much of a different outcome had I picked Coke, but at the same time, I'll never know. I've come to realize though, that the choices I make are not to be messed with. I have heard quite a few people throughout my life say they wish they could go back in time and change a choice they made. After watching The Butterfly Effect, I've decided I'm not going to think twice about my decision between Dr. Pepper and Coke, because God knows what would have happened had I chosen Coke.

Time travel at its best.

When I first watched The Butterfly Effect, I couldn't help but sit there thinking, "What the hell is going on here?" I was confused, but knew that I would forever love this movie. Watching it again, but considering the point of this class, I quickly gained a new sense of time travel, and how it can affect people. Upon witnessing Evan's blackouts, I assumed they all actually happened and were just a part of his life. What I learned was that Evan could change the events of his life by going back through his memories and doing thing differently. To me, this is what time travel is supposed to be about. Why anyone want to travel back in time without changing anything, or doing somethings differently? When I think about other works that involve time travel like Kindred, or Slaughterhouse Five, I am always disappointed that these novels introduce the idea of time travel, but not how it can change the past. The Butterfly Effect actually emphasizes that time travel can alter the course of someone's life. To me, this is the main concept of time traveling. I guess this is the why I like this movie so much. It shows me that I'm not the only one in this world who wishes they could go back in time and change the outcome of things.

Everything Matters- I FINALLY FIGURED OUT WHY IT WOULDNT POST! yay!

Just as a small raindrop falling into a gigantic ocean sends ripples throughout, the ripple of a small action can have a gigantic effect throughout one’s life. In The Butterfly Effect Evan, the main character, was able to return to his past and change key events. As inviting as this seems Evan discovers that every time he transforms his past, there are unintended consequences occur. The changes Evan makes have ripple effects. As Evan continues to “correct” his past, he realizes his actions hold unplanned significance- hurting he people he loves. By viewing Evans life with and without the “corrections” in Evans past the movie gives the viewer a unique prospective as to t he consequences of our actions.
Because Evan was willing to sacrifice for those he loved I to felt for the characters and became emotionally attached to them. The Butterfly Effect provides an interesting contrast between Memento and Aura. I hate movies that don’t have emotionally favorable endings—I become overly concerned with the characters. I get upset if everyone is hurt in the end. I hated Memento because it ended with confusion and violence. I enjoyed Aura, and was ok with its unique ending because it answered my questions. However, I was not emotionally vested in the characters, so I did not care if they were ok. Conversely, I loved The Butterfly Effect, even though it ended sadly and I was emotionally vested in the characters. I liked The Butterfly Effect regardless of the sad ending, because the ending brimmed with morality. Ultimately, everyone (except Evan) lead better lives. A fortuneteller in The Butterfly Effect tells Evan, “you have no lifeline, you were never meant to live.” Even though this quote may sound silly, in context it holds significance. Evan was never meant to be, no matter how he lived he hurt the people most important to him. In the end, Evan had no choice but to kill himself at birth, so those he loved could be happy.

Human Nature

If you ask me the Butterfly Effect does a great job of showing human nature at it's rawest. It's Human Nature to want to change the past in order to try and make the future better. Everyone wants something more right? Evan acts on these urges and indulges himself in a little bit of time travel. Little did he know that he would completely alter how his life plays out by changing the past. Over time Evan begins to realize his power and realizes that he is able to change other peoples lives. Yet this power comes at a cost. It seems as though when Evan changes the past, something is always worse in the future. The first few times Evan does his little "trick" he does it in order to make other people's lives better. Eventually Evan started to use his power for his own greed.

Greed is another characteristic of human nature that is found in this movie. When he is in prison, he uses his ability to get out because he doesn't want to deal with the hardships and because he has ruined his relationship with Kayleigh. He wants to turn to a new reality to escape the one he was in. He uses his power for greed a second time in the life where he has no arms. Even though he had made Timmy a much better person, saved Lenny, and had helped many people he was unhappy because of the loss of his arms.

Yet he also used his power for other people. It's human nature to want to help others and change your past and future - as I said before. When he sees that his mom has lung cancer from smoking, he realized it was his fault. So yet again our heroine journey's back in time to change his mothers outcome.

If you ask me this entire movie is one giant journal on human nature and emotion.

Off topic - the ending of the movie was kinda cool- the fact that he wasn't supposed to be alive in the first place. Anyways gives a whole new meaning to the expression "better off dead."

>Insert Catchy Title<

The Butterfly Effect is a movie that I have seen many, many times (more times than I can count on both hands combined)- but this movie never ceases to confuse and sometimes anger me. In the real world, people don't have the choice to go back in time and change things, so movies like The Butterfly Effect can easily draw in an audience. In the movie, Evan's time travel is mysterious and exciting because we never know what detail he is going to change and how that detail will change the rest of his life. This aspect of the movie I enjoyed.

The aspect of this movie that I don't enjoy is the way we are left to figure out what part of Evan's life we are seeing and what happened in his past to get him here. The excessive amount of time traveling confuses me immensely because I can't place together where we are in the timeline of Evan's life.

What makes me so angry in watching this movie is the fact that Evan doesn't really know what has happened in his life. With every time travel he changes his future, and when he wakes up from this time travel, he is left to place together the pieces of this recreated past. With every time travel, part of Evan's life is lost and he has to rely on his friends and family to tell him what exactly happened. This makes me mad because Evan's sole purpose in time travelling is to make things better in his future life, and even though he does change his life drastically each time, he also loses his past- and that doesn't seem very fair.

Because it makes me angry that Evan, in changing his future, loses everything about his past, the alternate ending to the movie is a much better ending. Evan never exists which means he never really has a past and never really has a future. This ending works out better for everyone involved, especially Evan.

An Excercise in Futility: Don't Time Travel

Usually, I hate movies like The Butterfly Effect. They scare me, plus I can't stand movies where things blow up and people die. But this time I almost enjoyed it--at least, it was definitely worth watching. The film doesn't just cover truth and lies, it covers reality and reality reworked.

The Butterfly Effect dives deeper into the realm of science fiction than Butler's novel Kindred, which deals with time travel in a more abstract and frightening way than the systematic journal entries in the film. While Dana is trapped in the eternal time paradox of "since it already happened, I can't change it," Evan can change the past, thereby affecting his future. Every time Evan goes into his past, he changes his reality, and damages his own brain. One could argue that this is all just in his mind and he's still in the hospital, except for the fact that he commits suicide in his mother's womb and the movie ends.

Evan probably should have just dealt with Kayleigh's suicide and not screwed everything up, but he did. Dana faces a similar problem, except that her stopping point was much later. After Hagar was born, Dana could have just let Rufus die, because her family was assured a future. But she kept getting dragged back, until she had to kill him and lose her arm in the process. Both Dana and Evan try increasingly hard to save someone (or several someones) but their quests get more and more futile, until Dana chooses to save herself over Rufus, and Evan saves everyone else over himself.

Time Gets the Better of People (Or Not)

*I'm going out on a limb with this. I hope you like it.

Time travel is a major theme in both Kindred and The Butterfly Effect. However, the effects of time travel are vastly different in each of the stories, as they each display a different theory of time travel. In Kindred, the supernatural force takes on a predestined aspect, forming a “loop” in time. No matter how Dana reacts to a situation, it has an unalterable effect on the future. Since she acts to save Rufus from drowning, getting beaten, etc, she inevitably ensures her survival. These acts guarantee her birth so that she can travel back in time to perform them again. Thus, an unending, circular pattern emerges, a loop that is impossible to break. Ultimately, the time travel controls Dana, forcing her to adhere to the ante-bellum South with no hope of changing it.
The theory presented in The Butterfly Effect is vastly different and far more complicated. Unlike Dana, Evan has the power to manipulate time and thereby reality. With each trip to the past, he changes one detail, which causes a landslide of events divergent from the original timeline. This completely distorts reality for both Evan and the audience, as each journey adds another reality to the larger reality of his time travels. The result is a large collection of multiple realities, including the original in which Kayleigh commits suicide. However, one question remains: do the original timelines continue, even after Evan makes a change? Evan’s blackouts provide some insight on the matter. Each time he blackouts, his future self returns to make a drastic change. Yet, at the end of young Evan’s blackout, history continues as though uninterrupted. But since Evan never returns to any of the other realities he creates, no one can ever know for sure.
Despite the differences in each theory, one thing holds true in both accounts. No one has complete control over reality. Dana hopes to influence Rufus’s moral development by her good example, even though the time loop never creates the illusion that she has this power. Evan’s ability to change reality creates the false sense that he has dominion over reality, yet his efforts lead to severe brain damage and ultimately death. Thus, these two stories teach that reality is a force beyond human comprehension.

Time Travel is Uncomfortable!

So after watching the Butterfly Effect, I realized for some reason I was much more comfortable with it's "sci-fi" ways than Kindred. Please do not misunderstand me, this movie is very heavy and intense for the first time viewer. However, when it comes to the method of time-travel I seem to be able to relate to it much better. I believe this is because the main character is not ensuring the survival of his ancestors like Dana, but ensuring the survival of those in his present life. It seems to me like the question of him exsisting or not is not there, so the idea of him going back into his own past is a little more understandable. This class has made me realize how uncomfortable I am with the idea of being lied to by authors, but I believe some ease me into it better than others. It is true that when an author kind of upsets you the story sticks, but I find if I can relate to a story I can find a deeper meaning.

P.S. This movie also made me reflect on the idea of fate. The quote in the beginning of the way saying that a butterfly's wings could create a tsunami really gave me that sense that history should not be messed with. Maybe if Dana knew that she would have two arms!

A Network of Choices

So, remember in my last post how I said I hated time-travel? Yeah, that still applies. I mean, really? He goes back in time to change stuff? I guess The Butterfly Effect makes more sense than in Kindred how she has to go back in time to make sure she lives, but I still don't like it. 

Ranting about time travel out of the way, I do believe that most decisions will affect the course of something, be it a day or a lifetime. No matter what, you can chose the direction you want go in, and so life could turn out in any way. I guess what was most interesting about the film was how when  Evan went back in time to make those decisions, he had a little more foresight into how things would turn out. Actually, he had an idea of how the future could be if he was to leave things the way they were with the option to press his luck and see how they would turn out if he was to change a decision made in his past. 

Invariably, each time he pressed his luck, things would turn out to be worse. To me, I guess the movie gave the message that you shouldn't regret anything. To trace a bad day or week or even a full rough spell back to one pivotal decision is a bad idea, because you never know what else would have or wouldn't have happened had you went down a different path. 

"You can't play God son."

The Butterfly Effect is disturbing, thought provoking, and horrifically captivating. I find it ironic that hours before we watched this film for our literature class I was sitting in my Introduction to World Religions class talking about a very similar topic. Our teacher was telling us about an old saying that, "A butterfly flying in the Philippines has an effect on a butterfly flying the the Unites States." Although this concept made sense to me at the time while I was in class, I had not put two and two together about the film we were watching, its title, and the saying I had learned hours earlier until the film was sitting on a big screen right in front of me.

I had walked in on this film accidently when it was out in theaters and remember running out as soon as I saw the screen. My reaction since that day has not changed much over the years. There were numerous times last night that I felt physically ill (particularly the part where Tommy burnt the dog alive), wanting nothing more than to walk out of the room and never finish the film, but I did not do that. Partially I did not do this because it was required for our class, but also in some odd way I wanted to know how the film turned out.

I have always wondered throughout my life about the effects that each decision we make has on the course of not only our own lives, but also on the lives of others. Sometimes when I look back on my life and think about the main events that helped define the person I am and the person I will become, I wonder what might have happened if I had chosen the other option. I always think about what would have never happened if my parents would not have gotten a divorce. I would not have moved so many times, I would not know my stepdad or my stepmom, I would not have my stepsister or my half sisters (who are triplets and the loves of my life). What if things had turned out differently? None of that would have happened, I probably would not be at this school. I would not be as adaptable to different situations or changes in my life. I also would not be as good at packing in a hurry.

I have been going to a religiously affiliated school for my entire life and have been learning about God and faith for most of those years. I have always been taught to have faith in God and even though I would not affiliate myself with one particular religion I have always kept that with me throughout my life. I have always believed that everything happens for a reason. Even the small, insignificant details of our everyday lives matter in one way for another to effect our ultimate outcome. I think that is part of the reason why I could not walk out on the movie last night. I love the idea that by changing one detail, although most of those details in the movie were not small ones, Evan managed to completely alter the outcome of reality. I think if this movie teaches us anything it is exactly what we already know and what Evan's Dad, Jason, tells him when he comes to visit him, "You can't play God son...You can't change who people are without destroying who they were." Because in the end, things will always end up the way they were supposed to be and there is no one in the world that can change that.

An Act of Self Sacrifice

Since I was not able to go to the showing of The Butterfly Effect last night, I had the lovely honor of watching the whole movie on YouTube because (of course) Blockbuster did not have a copy. I was always hesitant on watching this before, because many of my friends said it was “lame” and rotten tomatoes only gave it a 33%. But, I’m glad this class required me to watch it; and even though I had to watch the movie on the computer screen, it was still a good movie in my opinion.

Knowing that the class had to watch the Director’s Cut edition, I had to watch both endings that were posted online because I was not sure which one was the one that everyone else saw. In the version that yall watched last night, the movie ends with Evan watching a home video of his mother in labor, returning to his mother’s womb to strangle himself before being born. In the theatrical version, Evan returns to a video of the day that he first met Kayleigh, and tells her that he never wants her to come by him because he hates her. After seeing both, though, I am curious which one (had either been possible in real life) would have been the worse.

Now, I know that many are looking at this saying “Are you serious? In one version he doesn’t exist….duh,” but think about it. Both instances require Evan to perform an act of self-sacrifice. In the theatrical version, since he is forced to prevent his friendship with Kayleigh, he has to live in the present from that moment on knowing that he lost his love, and it had to be done. That, I feel, is a huge burden to have to live the rest of your life with. However, in the director’s cut version, although he has to go and kill himself in the womb, he does not have to live in the present with the agony of the other scenario.

As sadistic as it might sound, I think that the theatrical version is the worse of the two because he has to live with guilt, agony, etc. But I know that I don’t have the only opinion. So what you yall think? Which is worse, in your opinion?

Is It Really A Butterfly Effect?

According to the director's cut, Evan was never supposed to exist, and in the end didn't exist at all. So what was the point of showing us his "fake" life story if the changed he made didn't matter at all in the end. The only change that mattered was the last one he made; but all the other ones are essentially irrelevant to what Evan ultimately wanted to do. Even though the other realities made him realize what he had to do to spare the suffering of his loved ones, they really didn't serve any other purpose. This analysis is going off of the director's cut. But if you see the original version, it ends with Evan still being alive. And the fact that he's still alive gives meaning to the changes that he made to his different realities. But switching back to the director's cut --- and connecting this movie with the class --- I would say that this movie fits nicely because the "truth" is constantly changing.

Jason: "You can't play God son."

The Butterfly Effect is horrific, gut-churning, movie. I came in expecting something similar to Momento ,but it was something that definitely crossed the line of my comfort zone ,but not the line of truth and lies. I remember leaving the class feeling depressed, angry, and sad. Who knew that by changing one aspect of an individual's life could lead to such a catastrophic imbalance in the realm of reality of everyone in that individual's karass. Everyone in Evan's karass end up suffering as he tries to improve one person's life for the better and torturing everyone else by saving this one person's life.

The actual reality for Evan are his journals. As, he goes back in time to revisit his past through reading his journal entries he sees all the pain and agony the people around him suffer in his childhood. Tommy, Kayleigh, Ms. Trebone, and Lenny are the major characters that make up his karass. Throughout the movie Evan constantly tries to save these people and make their lives better as if he was God, which he is not and that is the lie which is the truth to him. For example, he rewinds his memory and tries prevent Lenny from suffering a mental breakdown as he witnesses the explosion of the blockbuster that killed a woman and a baby. By just changing that detail in the past, he ends up losing both of his arms, Lenny is now with Kayleigh, Tommy is a Christan preacher, and his mother is dying from lung cancer. With just that change in the present gives him the urge to commit suicide. Seeing his mother suffering from lung cancer all because he lost his arms makes him realize his that by saving one another suffers, but his drive of saving his loved ones does not simmer down. All Evan can say to his mother is "I'll save you."

That idea of saving people is what makes him think he is God. He tries again to save someone else again. This time he tries to save Kayleigh who is being sexually abused by her pedophile father. He ends up saving Kayleigh and in the future she goes to college, a member of sorority, and in a passionate relationship with Evan. Everything seems perfect but not so perfect for Tommy. Since he was left behind he ends up being sexually abused and is even a worse sociopath. In the end Evan loses his temper while trying to defend himself and ends up killing Tommy. Now, Kayleigh's heart is broken due to the loss of her brother.

With good intentions he tries to save the people he loves. Soon, he realizes that all his actions that he takes with a good heart ends up harming everyone he loves. He realizes that he isn't God as his father said, "You can't play God son." If all he brings is pain and heartache to everyone he loves then the world is better off without him. He decides to sacrifice himself, by going back in time as a fetus and strangling himself with his umbilical cord, in order to bring happiness to everyone else. As Tommy said, "True happiness can only be achieved through sacrifice...for us to be here today."

seems more like an umbrella effect

This movie is very twisted and out there but very entertaining to watch. The movie has events that Ashton Kutcher's character tries to fix and make the future different. Since he tries all the ways possible that don't work he realizes that he can't change the way things are and can't make them right. Just like the novels we just read nothing is fully correct or that everyone is fully happy. The way things are suppose to be and the way things are being changed aren't the same.
Fixing this he, Kutcher, needs to fix the whole problem. That problem is him. The fact the palm reader says he has no life line and he does not exsit is the point in the movie that things start to come together. I've seen this movie a couple times and this time I finally understood this part is key to Kutcher's character. When he tries and tries to fix things and nothing is working out the way he wants. He knows the only thing to do is to take himself out of the equation.
As we see in the last scene he kills himself to take himself from the equation. In Kindred, Dana needs to keep herself in the story and make sure she is still born. This is complete opposite of the Butterfly Effect. Everything happens for a reason and sometimes that reason isn't clear and Kutcher's character realized that with every time he went back to fix something another thing or person needed to be fixed. But really what needs to be fix was him. He sacrifices himself in a way to make his friends and family ultimately happier.

Maybe only one thing changed after all

When a film is able to make me look past Ashton Kutcher playing a serious role, there is a lot that is probably worth saying about it, but for the sake of the class (and everyone's time) I'll stick to writing about how I see the movie relating to our course.

The Butterfly Effect is a good follow up to Kindred because, at least for some of the film, it deals with the time travel paradox. Evan's "black outs" are actually when he has gone back into one of his memories to make an adjustment.

However, the thing that makes me think about the movie the most, is it's assumption of reality. Essentially, Evan's memories are changing. We are told this in the neurologist's office when the structure of his brain has changed. When we encode a new memory, new neurological synapses are created, re-linked, or strengthened, making our brains physically different with each new experience. Evan's brain completely transforms each time he revisits and changes a memory--this also explains his nosebleeds. Since we are viewing the movie through Evan, it is a possibility that only his brain is changing, not his physical world. It is known in psychology that people can manipulate their memories, or even create entirely new memories. It can be argued that only Evan's PERCEPTION of reality is changing and the viewer is taken along for the ride.

This is an extremely Idealistic view, and I'll admit that it's difficult to make the ending of the director's cut fit into it. However, that ending also unravels the time paradox, which forces the viewer to find a new frame of reference in which to analyze the film.

Thinking about it, The Butterfly Effect ties together many concepts from our reading. There's memory manipulation from Aura, the aforementioned time travel from Kindred, and the need for multiple, wide frames of refrence from The Man in the High Castle.

See? Guys that look like Ashton Kutcher just CAN'T be real!

The Butterfly Effect truly fits nicely in the required pieces for this class. The Butterfly Effect, specifically the Director's Cut, does not display a "true" or "real" reality. We learn from the beginning that Evan was never intended to be born; he has no life line, no soul. He was the fourth pregnancy for his mother, following several unsuccessful ones. However, his existence was beyond a miracle, more like deceitful to mankind. Thus, the life that he lead in life was a total sham.

Each reality Evan created by altering the past was to help someone in his life he cared about. Each "better" reality he creates, though, becomes progressively worse. His father, who ails from the same condition, even warns him against playing God to reality, that changing what is meant to happen results in terrible consequences. The viewers learn that Evan's invovlement in his fate was especially blasphamous as he isn't even real. He is an omniscent character who attempts to actively adjust the situations in his life.

I will admit, The Butterfly Effect is not a movie I would watch for fun over and over again. I can handle the violence, and it isn't the darkest piece that we've encountered throughout the course. I feel that the presentation is difficult to swallow. The film is completely cringeworthy, especially if you've seen it before. I also found the Director's Cut particularly hokey. I giggled when the psychic started freaking out about the soul. (NO LIFELINE?? NOOOOO!) The presentation of that idea seemed like a copout for crap cinema. Regardless of my opinions, The Butterfly Effect is a truly haunting film.

Is there a reason for reason?

When approaching this blog entry, I had the goal, or ambition, to look deeper into the subject of why Dana went back in time in Kindred. However, they led to me sitting on my bed for 15 minutes, unable to reach an answer as to why Dana had her time travels. Maybe it was to save Rufus, however after thorough conversation in class about that idea, it doesn't seem to make sense. Maybe she went back to save herself. Maybe it was just down right crappy luck. All the thoughts and possibilities running through my head left me stressed out over the meaning on the entire book, when I finally came to the thought, that maybe there was no answer.
Octavia Butler must have known she was going to leave her readers questioning. It lead me to the thought that maybe even Butler didn't know why Dana went back in time. Maybe thats the beauty behind this book, even this class. There may not always be a deeper meaning to a story. Questions, thoughts, and frustrations have all hit readers hard with any fictional novel. I believe Butler used her storytelling through science fiction to show that sometimes, literature is meant to spark questions, thoughts, and frustrations with no exact outlet. Does there always have to be an answer or easy solution?
I could sit on my bed for the rest of the night and try to figure out why the hell Dana went back in time and never find the right answer, which is probably exactly what Octavia Butler wanted.

"The sky is neither high nor low. It's over us and under us at the same time" (105).

I have always loved writers who have a distinctly unique style. Ones that make you think outside the box and make you feel absorbed into the story. Carlos Fuentes is definitely one of those authors. Although I have never read any of his other stories, I get the innate feeling that he has a knack for pushing the limits of reality.

In Aura, we, as the reader, are forcibly placed into the position of Felipe Montero, we go through everything he goes through, putting us right in the story line. There is no safe buffer zone between the reader and what is happening. There is no room to pull yourself away from the madness of this story. From the very beginning Fuentes pulls you in by saying, "You're reading the advertisement: an offer like this isn't made everyday. You read it and reread it" (3). I love that there is no place to hide in this story. Just like Felipe Montero is trapped within the Consuela's house, the reader is trapped within the story.

When I first finished reading the story, I sat there thinking over what it is that I had just read. I went back over some of the passages from the book trying to make sense of it all in my head. When I finally came to the conclusion that Aura and Consuela were one in the same and that Felipe Montero had some kind of connection with General Llorente it all came full circle for me. Then, I began to think that maybe the reason Fuentes puts the reader right in the story is more than just his style of writing. Maybe in fact, the reader is a part of this crazy world that Felipe has been caught up in as well. I began to think that maybe in order for the entire story to survive it needs the to reader to be an active part of it. Like Consuela created Aura to survive, so has Fuentes created the reader and Felipe to keep this entire cycle in place. At the very end of the story, Aura changes back into the old woman, but Felipe stays the same. This tells me that unlike Aura who is physically connected with Consuela, Felipe is his own entity, playing a role that needs to be filled in order for this story to survive. But just like Felipe, the reader is always their own separate entity, yet they are still playing just as intricate a role in helping these characters survive within the story.

Reading His Aura

Aura would probably be my favorite book that we have read so far. I like the places it has taken us and the way it took us there. I enjoyed watching him become a puppet of love (sick as that may sound) because whether it's not so obvious, that happens in real life. We become other people's puppets sometimes and we don't notice it. Of course, our girlfriends/boyfriends don't turn into old women/men within a couple of weeks, but nevertheless... it happens. I really liked the relationship between Consuelo and Aura as well as General Llorente and Felipe Montero, and the way Felipe just eased in to becomming a part of the house, just like furniture. Even when he argued about leaving with Consuelo, as soon as he saw Aura, he told her "yes, I'll be staying with you." He was gone to the world now, but he didn't care because he had his "true love". I think this is easy for anyone to relate to because once we find something or someone we care about a lot, we become a part of it and forget about what was there before it: sometimes temporarily, but sometimes forever.

Burning Kitties? No big deal.

*Note: due to technical difficulties, I have posted this for Jill. Enjoy.


When reading, I always look for a moral. If a book or story has no tale of morality, peace, or just a happy ending I am disappointed. However, Aura was different. Aura is a confusingly fantastic novel. With Aura, instead of searching of for morals I searched for answers. When Aura ended, I did not judge it based on its moral themes or a happy ending, but rather on its capacity to make me want to know.

I could not put Aura down because I wanted to understand the relation between Aura and Consuelo, Consuelo and Felipe, and Felipe and Aura. My desire to find morality and justice was overpowered by my desire to understand.

While reading this book things that usually affect me didn’t bother me. For example, while reading The Things They Carried I skipped the chapter about the baby buffalo, because I could not handle reading about its torture. Page 59 of Aura says, “Cats… all twined together, all writhing in flames and giving off a dense smoke that reeks of burnt fur.” If this description was written in The Things They Carried I would have cried, but I wasn’t bothered by the description in Aura. Aura makes immorality seem ok. My curiosity overwhelmed my capacity to feel.

Aura made me think differently while reading because it was created not to make the reader feel for the characters, but rather to make the reader feel creeped out. It leaves no clear answers, blurring reality and imagination - removing the need for morality.

Kindred State of Mind

One of our discussion questions had to do with the race of the characters in Kindred, and I was wondering how the novel would have been different if Dana were white and Kevin were black.  Obviously there would have been differences with the lineage, but barring that, it is an interesting question.  I automatically thought of the issue of her character. Would Dana have stood up for Kevin if Rufus called him a nigger? Does Dana really love Kevin?  She was unwilling to be his scribe for his upcoming literary work. She is unwilling to give an explanation for his injury and lets him be accused of abuse.  It is almost like Kevin is actually Dana's slave in the story, in that she does not treat him well, and does not see him as equal. Perhaps I read into this way to much or completely the wrong way, but that was how I felt. Furthermore, would Dana have protected Kevin like he did for her when they went back in time? We she have put her life on the line by saying Kevin was her slave? I really think that Alice and Dana's loves were similar, sincere yet reserved. Both were in situations were they HAD to put on a facade for their lover. How then is love different when we are cornered into it? Can it end up being the same, or will we always have these unfair reservations?

I say hey, What's going on?

Was anyone else so confused by Aura?  At first I was so confuzzled by the fact the the author kept saying 'you,' and I was thinking, "wait, me?" When he first reads the advertisement, he is intrigued and pictures himself fulfilling the duties. Then the author says 'your name' is missing, in which case i started to get lost. But i would be lying if I knew what was going on after the second chapter. I was under the impression that the niece was turning into a rabbit and then turning into a cat... I realized we talked about this in class and tried to explain it at an iron rectangle, but I'm still so confused. Aura is obviously the catalyst of the story, as all of the characters revolve around her. But when you relate him to Consuelo's late husband, things get iffy.  I did not really understand much of the book at all, therefore do I have much to offer in this blog? Well, I feel as if I do.  I think the fact that many would agree with me in their confusion of this book. HOWEVER, the book offered content that easily ties into the course. First off, we must decipher this idea of the rabbit, mush like we must decipher what is real in books like "Man in the High Castle."  But I feel as if we are past the point of deciding what is real or not, and to the point where we should decided what is important or not. The rabbit, then, would be almost irrelevant as it is in the mind of "YOU."  The fact that the Author uses the word "you" makes it so the reader feels encompassed in the story even though he or she may not know what is going on.  

Kevin's Trials

In the novel Kindred, Dana’s husband Kevin must play the part of a white slave owner, even though he is a forward, modern-thinking man from 1976. Not only does he play this part well, but as Dana is taken from him and he is abandoned in the past, he starts to become a man of the 19th century. When he first arrives, he defends Dana from Rufus, and is disgusted when Rufus tells him that no one would believe Dana is his wife. When he gets back to the present, he has a slight accent, like Rufus and Tom Weylin. He has trouble remembering how modern-day appliances work, and how to drive. He tells Dana how he saw a woman die in childbirth once, and how he helped slaves to escape and was almost caught for it. He’s angry because he can’t understand his own time, and it feels so unreal to him. When Dana comes home again, they talk about the possibility of Carrie being sold along with her children, and he refers to it as breeding. He’s still her husband, still the man Dana married. He doesn’t think of her or any other black person as inferior to him. But he’s used to being obeyed by them, after his five-year stint in pre-Civil War America. He’s different, and it’s unclear whether or not he can reconcile himself to his old life.

Goosebumps in Literature

Aura, the creepy Gothic tale told in Carlos Fuentes’s novel, challenges the modern reader to think outside the box in several ways.
Aura is told in second-person singular, which most of us haven’t seen since the days of Goosebumps-like horror novels. However, lost in the English translation is the imperative clause—i.e. not just “You do,” but “you must do”—further integrating you into the character, Felipe Montero. The fact that Fuentes tells us very little else about Montero besides his profession and his current lack of funds makes it even easier for the reader to become Montero. Then, as Montero later becomes the General, the reader deeply feels his sudden identity crisis.
The story itself falls within the genre of magical realism, which is unfamiliar in itself. The reader goes from this story that begins normally enough, to something very odd, very surreal, and very disturbing. From the General writing about how he finds the Senora torturing and killing a cat erotic and sexually stimulating, to Aura being created from poisonous herbs, this novel requires that the reader suspend their disbelief in such things in order for the telling of the story to happen.

I was once told I had a green aura...

Hopefully, the woman in Jackson's Square who told me that has never read Carlos Fuentes's novella.

I think the best thing about this story is that there is no clear answeras to what happened. The characters know because they occupy a space within the story that the reader can only guess at.Aura is the alter-ego, the self projection of youth from Senora Consuelo and Felipe is the reincarnation of General Llorente.

Consuelo felt as if she had missed out in life because she hadn't been able to have a child--Aura gives her a second chance to experience what she missed. Aura also a way for Consuelo to hold on to her youth and beauty. As her late husband wrote (in French I had to translate on Google) "you're so proud of your beauty, that would not you not to stay forever young" (Fuentes 87).

She sought out and hired Felipe because he gives her the second chance to live with her husband. He finds himself in the photographs of Consuelo and Llorente, which makes it logical that he has a relation to the couple's past.

The ending of the novella confuses me. When Consuelo says "We'll bring her back together" (Fuentes 145), it leads me to think that she is thinking about physically giving birth to Aura and not simply projecting her, but Consuelo is well past child bearing ago. There must be another meaning to this, but I cannot discern it. Perhaps, Felipe will give Consuelo the inspiration and motivation to maintain the projection of Aura.