A Fictional Documentary

After watching the first half of “Grizzly Man” I am still confused about my feelings toward Timothy Treadwell. Although we are physically watching him in videos that he shot, are we really getting to see who he was as a person? The definition of a documentary, according to Dictionary.com is “a movie that is based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc. that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements”. The most important word in this definition is purports (intends). The video intends to be factual and accurately represent Timothy’s life, but when it comes down to it, it is impossible to represent someone’s whole life and what they believed, in only an hour and forty minutes. We are only seeing the pieces of him that Werner Herzog wants us to see. From the hundreds of hours of video shot by Timothy Treadwell, Werner Herzog chose these clips to represent his life. Each video of Timothy Treadwell is place in the movie for a certain purpose: it is meant to evoke something in the person watching the video. As soon as we start to question Timothy, we are pulled back into believing in him.

As you watch the movie, you tell yourself that what you are watching is true since it is a documentary; everything in the film is an accurate portrayal of Timothy Treadwell’s life. This, however, is false. What you are seeing and feeling is what Werner Herzog wanted you to feel, and your opinion of Treadwell is what Herzog wanted it to be. Although it is impossible to fake real videos from Treadwell, it is possible to put them together in a way that gets a certain message across. There are thousands of other ways Werner Herzog could have put this movie together, however, he made it this way.  Although “Grizzly Man” is technically a documentary, we need to ask ourselves if it portrays Timothy Treadwell’s life, or a certain view of his life.

“If We Preserve The Integrity Of The Habitat”

Among the things that most intrigues me within “Grizzly Man” is that of Timothy’s presentation. I think on some level we’re supposed to sympathize with Tim, while at the same time recognizing him as problematic… but to be honest I think I spend a lot more time doing one of these things than I do doing the other.

Timothy clearly views himself as protector of the bears- he even declares himself to be such, but at the same time he neglects to disclose information important to this supposed position. While this is clear throughout all of “Grizzly Man”, it most clearly comes across within the video “Timothy Describes His Wilderness Mission” as he says things like, “in the time that I’ve been here, not one bear has been hurt. I’ve been able to guard them.” All the while, as we all know, the safety of the bears can be attributed not to Timothy’s efforts, but to the fact that he spends these summers on a preserve. Though this is made clear by Werner Herzog within the documentary, Timothy never discloses it himself. I think this complicates our understanding both of Timothy’s mission and of Timothy as a character. Timothy has to know that he’s on a nature preserve. He must be aware that the bears are not protected by him, but by are instead protected by law (perhaps we could go on to say that by treating these animals as though they are domesticated and by interacting with them so directly, Timothy is actually doing much more harm to the bears than good… and that he should be aware of this as well, but that’s a question for another day). All the while, Timothy celebrates himself and his supposed success with providing these bears with protection, maybe doing so even more than he celebrates the bears. Arguably, Treadwell could even better protect Grizzly Bears by extolling the protection provided by nature preserves, suggesting that these efforts should be expanded. Ultimately, this makes me wonder about the actual reasoning behind Timothy’s advocacy. We’re aware that Timothy has trouble interacting with humans, which makes me wonder if his celebration of himself as both a member of the bears’ community and as their protector is actually his way of trying to bring about acceptance within human society. While Timothy may not have been paid for his work, he certainly garnered attention for it and with this renown came an understood place within human society. I don’t doubt Timothy’s love of the bears, but I do wonder how big of a role they actually play in his activism.

Jewel: the Widow

What most intrigued me while watching Grizzly Man was the involvement of Jewel Palovak in the life of Timothy Treadwell both before and after his death. Jewel was a waitress at a themed restaurant where she and Tim worked together. This was how they met. The two dated for several years and remained close until Timothy's death in 2003. What perplexed me the most about Jewel's behavior as I watched her first interview in the documentary was the fact that she and Timothy were not dating at the time of his death. Given this fact, it is possible (honestly, it's probable) that she and Tim would not be a couple now were he still living. Why, then, does Jewel admit that she often feels like Tim's "widow." The fact that Tim perished in his fight to help the bears has completely changed Jewel's perception of her relationship with him. When faced with tragedy, one tends to focus only on the positive memories, and I have to wonder whether Tim is so important to Jewel primarily because she has idealized him in his death.

In a second interview with Herzog, Jewel faces opposite Herzog as he listens to the audio recorded at the time of Timothy and Amie's deaths. The look on her face is one of the genuine pain felt only by those in the deepest grief and mourning. As Werner instructs Jewel to never listen to the audio herself, the reason behind Jewel's deep emotional hurt is suddenly clear. Jewel does not miss Timothy so much as she mourns the fact that she will never know if she had a future with him. Does the loss of possibility dignify feelings of widowhood? It is true that Palovak is perhaps more attached than what would be normal or expected, but, given Timothy's tendency to feeling unlucky in love as he expressed in the video, I believe that he would be honored by Jewel's longstanding grief.

Dahl and Herzog

While watching Grizzly Man, I kept coming back to one nagging thought: Treadwell is exactly like Willy Wonka. 

To be fair, this isn't as much of a stretch as it sounds. I'm somewhat of a Roald Dahl enthusiast, and for those less Dahl-savvy, let me spell out some of his main archetypes:
1. The child hero. The hero is always, always a kid. S/he is brave, purely good, and, above all, clever enough to outsmart every adult. Ever. (See: Matilda Wormwood, Charlie Bucket, James Henry Trotter)
2. The obscenely-evil-beyond-any-normal-child's-imagination villain. (See: The Trunchbull)
3. The one nice adult. Which prevented 9-year-old Lindsey from casting books aside in horror. (See: Miss Honey, the BFG, Grandpa Bucket)
3. Everyone else. Primarily comprised of dimwitted, negligent parental figures and annoying children who aren't cool enough to be the hero.

But it would seem that Dahl's most iconic figure fits into exactly none of these categories. Is Willy Wonka the One Nice Adult? Not likely. I mean, he lets a kid drown in chocolate. The guy's nuts. He's too smart and pivotal to the plot to be Everyone Else, and he's definitely not the Villain.

So what is he?

Willy Wonka is chaos. He's effectively a recluse who could go off the handle at any second, sending kids down the trash shoot or turning them into giant, disfigured fruits. But he's also the defender of the faith. He strives to protect innocence and find a worthy child with whom to share his life's work.

In many ways, this is the character Herzog has presented to us: a man who fits no established cookie cutter, who seems often on the brink of insanity (the scene where Treadwell demands his hat back from a fox comes to mind...), but who has basically good intentions at heart. Both Wonka and Treadwell fancy themselves the protectors of some wild, pure innocence, and they both have unconventional, mostly ineffective ways of going about it.

One thing that struck me about Werner Herzog is that, unlike Treadwell, he doesn't see nature as "anything that harmonious and in balance" (NPR Interview). Instead, he thinks "the common denominator is, rather, chaos, hostility, and murder" (NPR Interview). This is exactly the Dahl kind of thinking that enthralled (and terrified) me as a child. In his books, the adults don't listen, no one's in control, and the main character could get eaten or turned into a mouse at any second. His stories are based in a total lack of stability, which is how characters like Willy Wonka arise in the first place. Since Herzog holds the Dahl Doctrine close to his heart, it's no surprise that he portrayed Treadwell the same way.

Lying To You For Me

When we lie to ourselves, we only need to lie to ourselves.  But when we make our world into a lie, we need to convince others we live in the lie we make.  In the movie, we see Timothy with his camera, providing footage of himself and bears, giving commentary that he is there to help them, and that he is their protector.  A very interesting detail is that there are multiple takes in these short clips.  He fully intends to use this footage to educate others, but is there a purpose for himself as well?  Timothy had no idea he would not make it back to civilization.  Was he planning to use these "scripted" moments to convince the rest of the world he was at home, sure of himself, and utterly content?  Perhaps those moments helped convince himself of that very fact. 

When projecting a "delusion" onto a world, you need passive actors whose actions you can construe in a way fitting to your version of the world.  In a way I am reminded of Shutter Island, where the main character's delusions were enough to completely overcome the reality that he lived in.  The rest of the psych ward was "playing in" to Teddy's concept that he was a detective being trapped, in order to bring him out of it in the end.  In Grizzly Man, the bears aren't conscious of Timothy's view of his life on the reservation.  Thus, the bears cannot actively rebuke his view that he protects them and they love him, although we do see a bear swat him out of the way at one point in the documentary.  Because of this, Timothy can keep living in the world he has constructed for himself as he tries to convince others he is sure of it.

This class has manipulated me into becoming a skeptic...

Similar to the significance of the pre-text and classification of genre that we saw in Cat's Cradle and The Things They Carried, the term "documentary" is equally as weighted in regards to Grizzly Man. A documentary, as we discussed in class, is completely "true" and based on "facts." This particular definition from thefreedictionary.com I found very interesting, "Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film."However, one could argue that though director Werner Herzog did not "insert fictional matter," there is clear editorializing in the way that the main character Timothy is portrayed. There is clear purpose in the order of the clips, Herzog's commentary through out, and general construction of Timmy in the eyes of the viewer. 

Furthermore, in Herzog's NPR interview he kept talking about his "vision" for the film. I found it interesting that Herzog emphasized his "vision" because one would think that documentaries should be created without much vision from the director in order to maintain the integrity of the plain facts and truth that one is trying to portray. To be fair, this is seemingly impossible because directors have a lot of power over our perception when it comes to editing and choices about the film, but it does make me more skeptical about what I am thinking and believing. Furthermore, I found it strange that Herzog had never met Timmy before and only had seem film and heard the tapes. It seems hard to fully understand and portray a man that you have never met and this ads to my skepticism over aspects of the film. It is clear that this class is making me more cynical :) but more so I think I am more of a conscious and active reader/watcher. 

**sorry i dont know why this is white and i cant fix it 

Point of View in Grizzly Man and Into the Wild

While watching the movie, I couldn't help but draw parallels between Grizzly Man and Jon Krakauer's Into The Wild. The public views both Timothy Treadwell and Chris McCandless in one of two ways: likeable, misguided men who died tragically trying to find direction in life, or a couple of complete idiots. Both make well-documented treks into the deep wilderness under life-threatening conditions, and as such, controversy surrounds their deaths. 

But what is more important than these surface similarities is the positive frame that Herzog and Krakauer put on their protagonists. Despite public controversy, Herzog dives deep into Treadwell’s personal footage, which documents his struggles with women and his history of alcoholism. I still find him to be extremely strange and a little bit dumb, but it is difficult not to sympathize him because grizzlies appear to be his entire life, and the passion he feels for them is respectable. Similarly, Krakauer portrays McCandless’s inner struggle as the cause of his ultimate trek into the deep wilderness. Again, his motives are shaky, but his commitment to his ideals and his apparent willingness to die for them are admirable, at least in the context of the book.

However, the documentation of both stories, both on the part of the documentarians and the men themselves, is calculated. Treadwell had countless takes of each shot he did, which guarantees, at least to me, that he knew exactly how he wanted his own story to be seen by the public. I also believe that McCandless wrote his journal in a way that would make him seem like a sort of modern day Thoreau if he were to go public with it after his journey. It is important to keep in mind within the context of both stories that there is a clear point of view. Whether either man is a tragic hero is for the individual to decide.

Alternate Worlds

Timothy Treadwell wants more than anything to be one of the bears, to be their friend, to be their equal.  He wants to be part of their world—a world more appealing because of its beauty and simplicity.  He is drawn to the mystery and power of another reality just as Mary Anne Bell is sucked into the chaos of the Vietnam War in O’Brien’s Things They Carried.  She was mesmerized by the war and “The land too, and the mystery” (O’Brien 71).  Treadwell and Mary Anne were both exposed to something new, something refreshing that became a sort of addiction (“Vietnam had the effect of a powerful drug” (O’Brien 109)).  Suddenly they felt more alive, more like themselves that they ever had before in the confines of conventional society.  The wild became their new individual realities.  Mary Anne finds a new environment more suited to her being.  Although Treadwell thinks he has too, his situation is different because in his, he is dependent on interaction. 

In Cat’s Cradle, Vonnegut argues that we all live by a set of foma—harmless untruths that make conceivably sad lives more livable.  In Timothy’s case, I think his untruths were, in fact, harmful. While the San Lorenzans fabricate an entirely new reality to live in, Treadwell attempts to live in another world that already exists.  While the San Lorenzans create a new set of beliefs that fit their needs, Treadwell tries to alter his life to fit into another’s (the world of the grizzlies).  Forcing oneself into another world is different from creating a new one that surrounds you (a phenomenon that is natural, and in some respects inevitable).

Impact of Herzog

Timothy Treadwell is pretty weird.  From the first half of the movie it is clear that Treadwell will do anything for the bears that he loves.  At first I did not take Treadwell seriously when he said he would die for the bears because many people say things like that just to express their dedication.  However as the movie progressed I started to believe Treadwell and I understood that his heart was really for the bears.  While, part of this may be because of Herzog’s directing tricks, I became attached to Treadwell.  I found myself cheering for him and the bears.  I then asked myself: how much is this because of Herzog?  Herzog does a great job in setting up the movie because he finds ways to attract the viewer.  I also thought that a good director could make a movie about how Treadwell is harmful to the bears.  The director chooses what the people see and how they see the characters in the film.  Herzog clearly wanted the people on Treadwell’s side, but if the director made the viewers see Treadwell in a different light then this movie would be completely different.  Treadwell could really be hurting the bears and disturbing their habitat.  A director could exploit that and show that trying to help animals can actually interfere with their lives.  I now think that the main reason Treadwell is liked is because of Herzog and not his mission to save the bears.

"A lover is a liar, to himself he lies" (Vonnegut 233)

O’Brien’s and Vonnegut’s methods of manipulating “lies” in order to give their lives purpose are necessarily deliberate.

 If O’Brien believed that his stories were objectively true, he would not be able to temporarily purge himself of his fundamental queries by transferring them to characters. O’Brien’s knowledge that he is fabricating characters enables him to render them proxies which search for life’s purpose in his stead. O’Brien is able to live purposefully, linearly, because he transplants his soul’s circlings into his characters. Therefore, O’Brien must knowingly and strategically construct his stories.

If, while writing Cat’s Cradle, Vonnegut believed himself to be divinely endowed with the tenets of Bokononism, he could not have known them to be lies, and Bokononism’s capacity to engender purpose would have been nullified. Bokononism must be composed of uplifting lies for it to fulfill. The crux of Bokononism is that it provides a set of beliefs that contradict common “factual” understandings of the world, and that the relative meaningfulness of these beliefs grants the self-liar transcendence over said “facts”. Feeling above the mundane world renders the Bokononist’s life seemingly purposeful: Vonnegut had to lie in order to generate a sense of purpose for his characters.

Conversely, the benefits that Treadwell derives from “lies” seem to be contingent upon his unawareness of his constructions. Treadwell felt that his life was purposeful because grizzly bears needed and received his protection, and because they loved him. Although Timothy worked to spread goodwill towards bears throughout the nation, and thereby might have successfully protected bears to a degree, his summer trips to the sanctuary and maze did not actually save bears from humans. He stayed in a wildlife reservation, in which the bears were legally protected, and he might have even endangered grizzlies by habituating them to humans, and rendering them more likely to approach people who would do them harm. Timothy said the bears “needed a caretaker”, and he believed that he fulfilled that role. Additionally, Timothy spoke anthropomorphically of the bears, attributing friend-like qualities to numerous grizzlies he had named and lived with, and he even claimed a mutual love between him and his personified beasts. The bears tolerated him for twelve summers, but I argue that they held no love for Treadwell. They rebuked Treadwell’s demonstrations of affection, consistently acted aggressively towards him, requiring him to scare them off, and eventually a bear even killed him. These “facts” did not impact Timothy’s emotions, because he apparently did not perceive them. “I am one of them,” Timothy asserted. “I had no life, now I have a life”: by “lying” unknowingly, Timothy Treadwell gave his life purpose. Thus, he distinguished his “process” from the conscious “lying” of O’Brien and Vonnegut, while joining them through his result.

Protector of the Protected

One thing I found very prevalent and interesting about Tim was the irony in so many of his statements and ideas. Before the documentary started, we were informed that Tim was illegally hiding on a National Park, where all the animals on the land are protected by the government. However, despite this fact Tim early on in the documentary states that he is there to protect the bears; This statement is ironic because him being there trying to protect the bears (who are already protected) actually did more harm than good to him and to the bears. Another ironic twist was his love for the bears and his acceptance that "they" (the bears) could hurt him. Initially, Tim stated "I would die for the bears but not at their claws and paw," which is in fact what happened. He didn't die for them, he died at their "claws and paws." Tim also claimed later on that he would "die for these animals," but then added "I do not want to be hurt by a bear."
The irony in so many of his claims makes it hard for us to read Tim as a character. Sometimes I feel so bad for him because you can tell that on some level he's crazy, he has to be in order to put his life in danger to become "friends" with bears and protect them on already protected land. It's sad because he is clearly so in love with these animals to the point that he wants to "mutate" into one. On the other hand, he admits countless times that he could in fact get hurt or even killed by the bears, so on some level, he knew what he was getting himself into.

A Different Perspective

Animal Planet made an 8-episode series called "The Grizzly Man Diaries" about Timothy Treadwell that apparently "instead of focusing on Treadwell's pathologies, and the unorthodoxy of his methods, the series tries to honor the power of his work - his fearlessness and the amazingly close-up intimacy he presumed with generations of bears." This show definitely gives a different perspective of Treadwell because it is not critical of Treadwell's methods or personality. It doesn't even seem to take these into account.

http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2008/08/29/proximity_trumps_pathology/

The Power of Filmmaking

Filmmaking, especially the editing process, is an incredibly powerful thing. With the ability to take out any parts of an interview, take certain scenes out of context, or determine the order in which you want your audience to view these scenes, you gain the power to completely manipulate your audience.  Timothy Treadwell, the "Grizzly Man," is portrayed as an innocent, childlike character, at least in the first half of Werner Herzog's documentary about him. Despite how delusional Treadwell really is, we sympathize with him, and are somewhat angered by the interviews with people who disagree with what Treadwell was doing. When we hear Sam Hagli, a member of the backup team who was sent out after Treadwell's death was suspected, speak about Treadwell's work, we feel almost defensive of Treadwell. Hagli says that Treadwell was stupidly treating the bears like they were not actually wild animals because he thought he had a special bond with them. Objectively, this is an absurd idea, and it is very dangerous to attempt to interact with a very powerful, wild animal. However, when we see this interview in the context of the rest of the film, we become saddened because we see Treadwell as this innocent, loving man and we don't want him to be hurt by Hagli's doubting words. Obviously, we don't become completely unaware of the fact that Timothy Treadwell is a bit delusional, and that his work is not actually making as much impact as he would say it is, but we want him to continue to be able to believe this. Herzog shows Treadwell giving free talks to schools, and talking about how much he loves these wild animals. He truly, without a doubt, believes that it is his duty to protect these grizzlies, and we want his innocence to remain intact.

Don't Judge a Person By a Film

Having watched half of ‘Grizzly Man’ and listening to the interview, one thing that really struck me were the differing perspectives and opinions of Treadwell’s adventures. As Hayley previously mentioned, Herzog produced the film after Treadwell had already passed away, and he was the one that chose which footage was shown, how it was shown, and who he interviewed and included in the film. As I watched the first moments of the film, I thought what Treadwell was doing was admirable and was a genuine act of kindness. As the film progressed and I listened to the disapprovals, I started to question whether his adventures with the bears were really helping or hurting. Many people thought that “he was disrespecting the bear (…) crossed a boundary.”(Grizzly Man) Looking at the shots where the bears were civilized and seemed unbothered by his presence, I would have never thought that he was crossing a boundary. However, when the film announced that a bear killed Treadwell, I really questioned his decision to go into the wild with these bears. If Timothy hadn’t died, the footage shown in the documentary would have convinced me that Grizzly bears are not as aggressive and unfriendly as I thought; however, the unfortunate attack by the bear makes his intentions and his results seem less legitimate.

In the class decision, the big question of “what story is actually being told,” really got me thinking. Although the documentary was not scripted, the director strategically presented certain scenes with certain outside inputs in order to send a message to the audience. In his interview he says that Timothy had disrespected the bears and that his actions were ‘wrong.’ Similarly, in Grizzly Man, one of the people who were interviewed said that ‘he got what he deserved.’ (Grizzly Man). Is this the message that Herzog is trying to send to us? Is this the reason he made this film? Even though their thoughts on the matter are valid and understandable, I don’t think that anyone can say what was ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ regarding these attempts. We, as the audience, must now try to formulate our own opinions and outlooks on Timothy Treadwell’s efforts without allowing the inputs from others contaminate our perspective and lead us in a direction that they want us to go. 

Stories on Stories on Stories on Stories

In our class discussion today we talked about the world that Timothy “created” in his mind for the bears, which he displays by talking to them like pets. This is not a judgement call that we should be making. Of all humans, Timothy can probably be the most objective about the bears because he has spent way more time with the bears than us. He was able to intuit enough about their behaviors that he could stay alive, even at extremely close proximity to them, for thirteen summers. Even if he was projecting onto them, those projections kept him alive pretty well for a long time. One of the men interviewed for the film said that the bears don’t eat Timothy because they think he’s retarded. He is personifying the bears the same way that Timothy does. Even when criticizing Timothy for his “delusions,” we tend to make up our own stories for the bears, and those stories are focus more on Timothy than the bears.

The bears have a lot more going on in their lives than thinking about the presence of a human. They’re either thinking that Timothy’s a threat or that he’s not, and beyond that they’re thinking about finding food and taking care of their young. To them, Timothy is just another part of life. I found it interesting that when talking about the bears, people often jump to the impact Timothy was having on them, when in reality Timothy was just living amongst them, hanging out near them. He didn’t have any more impact than a bird or Timmy the fox.

Grizzly Man: the Character Constructed by Werner Herzog

After listening to the NPR interview with Werner Herzog, I now think of the documentary a little differently. Herzog made the documentary after Treadwell had already died, meaning that the representation of Treadwell in the documentary was entirely crafted by the director. It was Herzog who sifted through the hundred hours of footage that Treadwell filmed; it was Herzog who read Treadwell's diary and interviewed his friends; most importantly, however, it was Herzog who pieced together the film, fitting in each clip meticulously and purposefully to give the audience a specific and partially artificial representation of the Grizzly Man. Because Herzog is manipulating each piece of video and information that he has collected, the audience does not see the pure Timothy Treadwell, but the Timothy Treadwell that Werner Herzog wants them to see. I think that this is a particularly interesting idea given that in his NPR interview, Herzog almost immediately refers to Treadwell as a "character" (NPR interview). This seemingly innocent word becomes loaded given the context that he is referring to a real person in a real documentary. If Herzog sees Treadwell as a character, then is he admitting that he had a hand in shaping the man that the audience perceives to be the real Timothy Treadwell? This hypothesis is also substantiated by Herzog's later acknowledgment that he often blurs the lines between documentary and feature film. Herzog admits himself that "sometimes I invent, I script" (NPR interview). So if Herzog has such a heavy hand in creating Grizzly Man the character, then it is impossible to say that the audience is getting an accurate account of the real Timothy Treadwell. Thus the real question that the viewer should be asking themselves after the film ends does not have to do with Treadwell's mental state, but with how and why Herzog manipulated Treadwell's story and the audience into believing it. Is Herzog just trying to create a good story or does he really want to accurately depict the Grizzly Man? Is he trying to honor Treadwell's memory or does he have something a little more critical to say about Treadwell's way of life?

No More, Without Less

Vonnegut’s bokononists and the writer O’Brien create purposeful lives for themselves by manipulating subjective meaninglessness through the contrasting methods of believing religious tenets on top of mundane scientific “fact”, and writing into being a proxy which can take on the necessity of query.

The bokononists use science to establish in their minds a mundane level of existence, over which their religion can exalt them. Bokononist’s know that their religion is a set of helpful lies. Their knowledge of this is what enables them to simultaneously hold scientific “fact” in their minds, as well as religious tenets. Bokononists know that many people do not believe in God. Bokononists know that the big bang and evolution are often used to explain our existence, from the very beginning of time. Bokononists understand that many people think humans have no purpose, and no intrinsic meaning. Science renders the world thus, in the base of their minds. Bokononism lifts them above each of these lesser “realities”. There is a God! He created us out of mud, and invited us to look on all of Creation. We have karasses, and we are all significant, and there is nothing higher for us to do than love one another. Boku Maru matters. Bokononists feel higher than the mundane scientific world, the other option in their minds, the “reality” that renders Bokononism a lie, and therefore, they feel fulfilled.

              O’Brien creates characters to whom he can pass on his deep sense of loss. When his characters live through anguish and a sense of meaninglessness, O’Brien is able to feel these things less, because of the inherent power of writing. O’Brien entraps his character Norman Bowker in an endless orbit around a hole in his heart. Norman cannot connect to the peaceful world he has been dislocated to, and therefore he can find no person or means through which to express, objectify, and temporarily release his pain. Essentially, Norman Bowker is O’Brien, if O’Brien could not write. As long as Bowker circles, O’Brien can progress through life, the hole in his heart transplanted, and thus partially assuaged.

This Made Me Laugh, in Relation to our Recent Class Discussions on "Success"

Plus, it's The Onion. Who doesn't love The Onion?

http://www.theonion.com/articles/breaking-daniel-throwing-his-life-away-you-should,34087/