Author: ekimo

Reading the Unwritten

Something from our class discussions that I found interesting was the possible meanings of the title of the series itself, “The Unwritten,” and what it could be referring to.

I remember it was suggested that “unwritten” could refer to the way that Count Ambrosio can never die as he is “unliving.”  Similarly, stories that actually remain unwritten can never “die,” in a sense, since once they are put to paper they become vulnerable to being reinterpreted, or warped, as in the case of Jud Suss.

It may also refer to Tom himself, the “real” Tom, not the one written about in his father’s stories.  Although the lines between fantasy and reality often become blurred within the novels…

As a series that is still a work in progress, I guess it also may be too soon to come to any conclusions.

A bit hard to swallow

I’m afraid I’m not completely sure what to make of Swallow Me Whole, particularly the ending, so I apologize for my subpar review.  There were a number of things I saw that I felt were important in some way, but couldn’t grasp beyond that.

I noticed that while both Ruth and Perry appear to be schizophrenic, Ruth doesn’t fight it, while Perry does.  Ironically, or perhaps because of this, help is sought out for Ruth while Perry’s issues are simply brushed off.

Though it’s implied that the characters experience hallucinations, I’m hesitant to say that none of it was real.  Near the beginning the grandmother is able to perceive somehow that Ruth also has visions, and later when they talk, she states “…if you call for it, it’ll be there.”

Some of her grandmother’s issues seem to be “passed on” to Ruth, as she has her epiphany shortly after her grandmother’s death, and looking at her face despite trying not to.  From this point onward it’s event after event until the end; her outburst at school, her parents finding out that she stole the frog from the museum, etc.  Throughout all this she’s able to justify all her behavior—to herself—until she is “swallowed whole” as it were.

On that note, Ruth’s visions are mostly manifested in hordes of insects, and her grandmother’s issues seem to be represented by that adorable little pill-monster thing, which is consistent with the statement that her hallucinations are medication-induced.  At one point the monster is depicted as swallowing the insects, maybe showing that Ruth’s condition persists, despite medication.  It could also signify that the nature of her issues has changed, so as to become more problematic.  So perhaps Perry’s feeding of the frog-vision at the end is an indication that another “passing on of issues” has occurred?

The Animals of Maus

I apologize for being “unoriginal,” but what I found most interesting this week were the discussions on the symbolic portrayal of characters as various animals.

I think that by portraying the racial and cultural divides more clearly, Spiegelman was able to further show how absurd it is to discriminate based on those factors alone.  To me, it seemed almost natural for different species of animals to be biased against each other, but despite the fact that all characters were portrayed as anthropomorphic animals, it was stated more than once that everyone was human.

In various ways, it seemed that turning the humans into the animals they “became” was an attempt to make the horrors of the Holocaust make some degree of sense, and I found myself sometimes substituting the animals for the actual humans of the Holocaust in my mind when pondering about it.

It took a moment for me to fully register the fact that the tall, vest-wearing, cigarette-smoking mouse that Spiegelman portrayed himself as was the same person as the gaunt, depressed-looking, mustached man in Prisoner on the Hell Planet.

Nat Turner’s Potential

At first, I was surprised at how Baker portrayed the rebellion.  It was obviously going to be a violent event, but I remembered that Baker had described Nat Turner as a hero of his in the preface of the book.  So I found it odd that his hero and the blacks that he led were portrayed as utterly ruthless, killing men, women, and children alike without remorse.  Taking this into account, I got that the slaughtering of the whites was an abomination that was given birth to by the abomination of slavery.  In fact, there are scenes of pain, suffering, and horror throughout the entire book, none of which would have occurred were it not for slavery.

Nat Turner was a gifted and highly intelligent man, but unfortunately born into a life of servitude.  As a slave, it seems that he didn’t accomplish much more in life than a brutally violent, religion-inspired rebellion.  Given these facts, I’m led to imagine what good he could have accomplished and contributed to his society if he was a free man, and not burdened with the shackles of slavery.  People were naturally drawn to him due to his intellect and charisma, and he seems to be a born leader.  Would his leadership benefit his fellow man?  Would he still perceive himself as a Christ-like figure?  And how many other similar individuals with great potential might have been held back due to the circumstances of their birth?