What Was Dickens Thinking????

To start off, this book is hella dark. As we talked in class about what was happening in Hard Times, we see that not much is happening in the industrial city of Coketown. But seriously, who names a town COKETOWN. Anyways in class we had talked about themes of the book, which mostly related around darkness and despair. We can tell that Charles Dickens is great writer but I don’t really know what he was thinking when he wrote this book, but some thought he was just fed up with utilitarianism and political Economy.  This book literally takes us through a life of two people, a boy and girl, brother, sister and how they were raised through economical theory, which pretty much ruined their life. Charles Dickens wanted to prove to everyone that Utilitarianism is a load of garbage, especially when it tries to take over Judeo-Christian ideas, I don’t know what the hell these ideas are since I am a Catholic and we are the best. But it somehow ties into morality and how utilitarian thinkers tried to replace this with more statistical based explanations with their motto basically being “SCIENCE BITCH!” and here is poor old Charles Dickens saying “Whoa that’s not cool bro” and thus the creation of this story is made.

            Economists had different theories to go off of this and it’s pretty interesting to see what they have said. Take David Ricardo for example, he wanted people to know that they as economists didn’t want to tell people how to live their lives (Yeah because that makes a lot of sense based on these utilitarian thinkers), then you have economists like Harriet Martineau who say “Hell Yeah! Let’s tell these people how to live their lives (That’ll work out well). Then here comes once again good ole Charles Dickens who is the wise one of everyone and says “Hey screw both those ideals and let people be who they are without the use of math and crap” (My Homie right there). So thus like I stated earlier he wrote the novel Hard Times in order to get his own ideals and voice across to these thinkers and normal human beings in this awesome but screwed up world. With ideals in his head and a smartass mouth Dickens wrote probably one of the most depressing stories that I have never read and yes it really did get across to the people in a sense that it hit every key issue that was brought up during his time.

This is Shane Winkelbauer

Two Thumbs Way Up

It's all about heart

        Ah yes so we've reached the crucial juncture in any American literature class where we delve into the violent lunacy that is the brilliant works of Edgar Allan Poe. Poe is the author who may be most commonly associated with being a possible sociopath. I cannot speak for how he was as a person, but seriously this guy writes some pretty dark, gruesome,and other wise disturbing things. It is very well written, but disturbing none the less. Slow painful murders, being buried alive, disembowelment, Poe covers all forms of violence in spectacular literary fashion. Usually overly violent stories would be thrown out as garbage, but Poe's brilliance as a writer refuses to let that happen in any of his works.

For example, one of Poe's most famous pieces is the short-story A Tell-Tale Heart. The story takes the place from the view of the narrator plotting to kill the old man he lives with. The odd part being the narrator admits that the old man has never wronged or insulted him in anyway. Not that if he had the consequent murder would then be acceptable, but at least there would be something relating to understanding from the reader. But no the only reason the narrator presents is the old man's "evil eye". This poor old soul has cataracts and this freaks the narrator out. This narrator claims that he still has his sanity and just suffers from something resembling nervousness, a big red flag. If you have to try and convince yourself that you are sane there's a good chance that you may not be all there in the head. So for seven days this guy opens the old man's door at night looking for this evil eye. He watches the old man while he sleeps, but remember he's not crazy. On the eight night the old man awakens and the narrator smothers him with the old man's bed. In classic Poe style the narrator dismembers him, and hides the body beneath the floor boards. Of course the old man screamed and so the police are called, and they come to investigate. Here is what makes this story a great piece of literature. Shortly before he kills the man the narrator claims to hear his heart beat. This of course is not entirely possible, but Poe uses this to illustrate the narrator's conscience. Usually a conscience is just the voice in your head that tells you right from wrong, but due to this characters lack of sanity he hallucinates and hears the beating of the old man's heart even after killing and storing the body. The more guilty the narrator feels the louder the sound gets until he finally rips up the floor and admits to the murder. The irony here is that the narrator convinces himself that the police present could also hear the noise and knew he was guilty. They could not in fact he was well on his way to getting away with this crime. This is how Poe makes this story great. Poe uses the narrator's possible insanity to show guilt in a way that most people would never exhibit. It is also different in that Poe tells the story from the view of the antagonist. This is a common tactic Poe uses and it works very well. In most stories the reader doesn't get this sort of detailed look inside the head of the bad guy. Poe does not always present his stories with a clear cut protagonist, but often uses an antagonist vs victim type display. This results in stories that are both intriguing and entertaining, and is not something most could. It is for this reason Poe has stood the test of time and why his overall violent style of writing is accepted as great works of literature. Many other writers, even in the modern day, have used this approach and it all began with Poe and his own style of brilliant darkness. I am still wondering where he would come up with stuff like this, but I digress. After all HIS beating heart was most likely in the right place.

This is Trevor Mashburn

With Two Thumbs Way Up

Walk a mile in god's shoes

Hey readers, this week we’re continuing on with our discussion of Mary Shelly’s “Frankenstein” but this week we’re going to do some more analyzing of the text.  One question that was asked of the book was, do humans have the right to play god?  More specifically this question pertains to the realm of life and death.  Now, one might say that mankind has always been endowed with the ability to create life (though it is a privilege some might argue that is overused).  But, from a philosophical point of view, that organic process by which a child is grown was given unto us by god.  Now, if we were to circumvent this process and thrust a being into life without the chance to have grown accustomed to life, are we treading in god’s domain?

          Furthermore, what is expected of the creator or father?  Do we expect god to impart upon each of us the wisdom required to navigate through society?  Or is that a job that falls to the created?  Can the monster truly blame Victor for bringing him into the world unprepared?  We see that the Monster does very much believe that it is his creator’s fault, that he should be cast into the world so unceremoniously and left to his own devices.  A fate which fosters his intense hatred and misery, and forces him to lash out against his creator.  Now, we as humans can raise our fists to the heavens and scream any manner of obscenities at god, but what makes Frankenstein so interesting is that he is able to physically surpass and in turn, harm his creator.

         So, the moral question is, if mankind obtains the power to surpass god, what responsibilities fall upon our shoulders?  And, is that something that we can do while still being morally clean?  I would believe that man should be wary of playing god for as is seen in Frankenstein; there can be a world of unintended consequence.

This is Jackson Zeiner, signing off.              

It's ALIVE!!!!......... well kind of

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, even we at Two Thumbs Way Up cannot doubt that this novel is without question a classic piece of literature. We know this and we haven't even finished it yet. That brings the focus to what makes this story a classic. Just because some random hippy with an internet blog uses the word classic in his homemade book review does not make a story a "classic". For the record a slew of positive critic ratings  also does not necessarily convey what we will call classic status(though it does help). A classic (as defined by the literately brilliant at Two Thumbs Way Up) is a story that truly stands the test of time for reasons other than the pure difficulty of reading it(I will never understand A Tale of Two Cities). Frankenstein exhibits this perfectly (its a blog arguing with me will get you nowhere). This story was first published in 1818 and it is still commonly taught in both high school and collegiate classrooms across the world in the modern day. Also the themes and motifs originally presented in this story are still used both in modern media and literature. The idea of Frankenstein's monster is used and reused almost to the point of over saturation (Disney has used it on multiple occasions). One of the key themes in Frankenstein is science, more specifically what happens when humans take science too far and where is the line separating moral experiments from immoral ones. We would all literally be flabbergasted(surprised) if you had not seen some sort of TV show, book or movies that have a plot related to this topic. This is why Frankenstein is truly a classic story AND many of its messages are well known and well used today. Few adults, and many kids, have not at least heard of Frankenstein in some capacity. This above all else is what makes this story a true literary classic, and this is why Frankenstein will be alive and kicking for many generations to come....... well kind of.

This is 

Trevor Mashburn

With 2 Thumbs Way Up