Voodoo Lecture

I really enjoyed the lecture I attended last night. Being from New Orleans I've heard rumors and misconceptions about voodoo often. Luckily the lecture by Mark last night cleared up New Orleans voodoo for me. It was interesting to hear him explain the history I have heard often. Marie Laveau is a very familiar name to most New Orleanians and hearing the history from "voodoo priest" was enlightening. I also found interesting how assured he was about the things he had seen and experienced it reminded me of discussions we've had about truth versus reality. It would be interesting to see a ritual and see if this "truth" is reality or something experienced only be very spiritual people. Overall I'm really glad we had the opportunity to learn more about this religion.

Being open minded

All my life I have grown up as a devout christian who thought of voodoo as the "devil" or sorcery... and after Mark's talk last night I really can say that I have a new found appreciation for the religion of voodoo. (I didnt even know it was a religion at first!). MY fiancee' just so happens to be Creole and his great-grandmother practiced Voodoo as well. I took him to Mark's lecture and even he learned some things that he did not know before! I cant wait to talk about this in my World Religon's class on Tuesday... Everything about Mark made that speech amazing. Especially his accent. All in all it was probably the bst 2 hours i could have spent on a thursday night. :)

Voodoo Lecture

I am glad I attended the Voodoo lecture, not only because it was required but I did find it very interesting. Last semester I took the course "World Religions" and it briefly touched upon the Voodoo tradition. Mark, or to some people known as a Houngan (male priest), was very informative on the history of the Voodoo practice and erased most of the misconceptions I had about the Voodoo stereotype. Also, I thought it was very interesting when he spoke the language of the native Haiti with some people in the audience. All in all, I believe it was an interesting presentation on the slightly misinterpreted tradition of Voodoo.

Voodoo Lecture

I really enjoyed the lecture, but I went into it with quite a bit of apprehension. I wasn't sure what to expect in terms of how much I would actually learn, or if I was going to be force fed the sensationalized version of "voodoo." Luckily, the lecture wasn't one sided, and focused on the two main interpretations of what has been come to be known as Voodoo. The history of the religion/culture was given, and the flashy form created for commercial purposes was introduced as well. The lecture depended heavily upon perspective. As the audience, we had to be conscious of the importance of perspective when we were introduced to the term, "zombie" and it's meanings. In reference to the raised from the dead "zombie," Mark Mollendorf said that even though this meaning is best known to the public, that doesn't make it the truth. That really struck me as connecting to this class. The sensationalized "Voodoo," although deceptive in some aspects of the facts and actual beliefs of the religion, was based upon the religion. In that sense it is not a whole truth, but not entirely a lie, either. Although the complete truth and integrity of the religion is often jeopardized by the senstionalized version, it does serve a good purpose. It has helped to build up New Orleans' economy, which reminds me of what Bokononism was to San Lorenzo.

Where is the Line Drawn?

Irrational arguments between Jensen and Strunk, killing a baby buffalo, talking and laughing with the dead.
The Things They Carried has created a question of boundaries for me. It started when I wrote my thesis for the book. It is evident that social codes are elastic in the Vietnam war for these characters. If civilians acted in the same manner, it would be appalling. So where exactly do the boundaries stop in wartime?
And to further broaden the topic (I know it's really going outside the novel), where are situations where boundaries for traditional social interaction/standards/customs/codes allowd to be stretched or broken?

The lecture

I found to voodoo lecture to be intriguing. I never had really considered how much voodoo had to do with the history and development of New Orleans, partly because I am not a native and it didn't really concern me back home. I was an informative lecture, and I really enjoyed it. It made me think about how other religions and cultures affected the growth of other major cities around the United States.

Voodoo Lecture

The Voodoo lecture tonight was very interesting. I really enjoyed listening to Mark talk about the history of Voodoo and was very surprised to find that the perspective I had of Voodoo was wrong all along. I like the way he said it "runs in the blood," this goes to show how important family is in Voodoo. I always took people who practiced this to be evil and dangerous, but Mark was very nice and seemed harmless. He did say, however, that he has the power to have things done to someone but it isn't done in the way I thought it was. It is actually done through spirits who respond to God and he (Mark) has no control over what the spirits decide to do to this person. Mark was very friendly and funny, he made the lecture fun and I enjoyed it very much.

I'm just a boy...

Today in class we talked about how O'Brien's daughter, Kathleen, acts as a metaphor. Professor Schwartz mentioned how her "field trip" to Vietnam with her father was something too old for her. Similarly, Timmy (young version of O'Brien) goes to see the movie The Man Who Never Was, which was about WWII. This is the second time we see kids doing something too old for them.
This got me thinking that this emphasizes how young the boys in the war are. For them, the war is something too old for them. The kids doing and seeing things that are beyond their age range represents the youth of the soldiers. As Azar says "I'm just a boy." Even O'Brien (the character, not author) believed himself to be too young to be drafted to Vietnam. It seems to be a reoccurring point that O'Brien (the author, not the character) brings up.

Detecting Similarities between Bierce and O'Brien

Hey everyone,

We spent a lot of class last Thursday talking about the chapter in O'Brien's book called "How to Tell a True War Story." At the time, I said that Ambrose Bierce said some things that are very similar to what O'Brien says in this chapter. What O'Brien says aren't perfect copies, and Bierce's comments were said in a different context (responding to this guy named William Dean Howells, whose name probably isn't important to you), but I'm sure that you will quickly detect similarities, esp. when you remember that Bierce participated in and wrote a lot about war.

"Probability? Nothing is so improbable as what is true. It is the unexpected that occurs; but that is not saying enough; it is also the unlikely--one might almost say the impossible. . . . Considered from a viewpoint a little anterior in time, it was almost unlikely that any event which has occurred would occur--any event worth telling in a story."

"Fiction has nothing to say to probability; the capable writer gives it not a moment's attention, except to make what is related seem probable in the reading--seem true."

[Compare with O'Brien chapter mentioned, especially p. 68, as cited below):

"In many cases a true war story cannot be believed. If you believe it, be skeptical. It's a question of credibility. Often the crazy stuff is true and the normal stuff isn't, because the normal stuff is necessary to make you believe the truly incredibly craziness."

Bierce, "The Short Story," in The Opinionator, vol. 10, The Collected Works of Ambrose Bierce.

Truth, Lies, and Literature

In my opinion, "The Things They Carried" most nearly describes the title of our English course. Reading page after page, I can't help having a hunch that this book is more of a memoir than a fictional piece, because frankly O'Brien uses such tremendous detail of combat, death, life in the line of combat, family, etc., that he couldn't possibly make this stuff up. I find it difficult when reading this book to draw a line between fact and fiction, because I can practically close my eyes and picture a scene that O'Brien has written about. That's how much detail he uses. The man is clearly a literary genius, and must absolutely stump pretty much anyone who reads this novel.

A few years back I read another Vietnam War book titled "A Rumor of War" by Philip Caputo, and have seen uncanny resemblances between the two throughout the entire time. Of course, Caputo's book was an autobiography detailing his own experiences, which eerily enough echo the story of the soldiers throughout the current novel we are reading. On the whole I do not analyze and nitpick books to this extent but O'Brien has left me, as stated before, stumped.