All of My Family is Dead. No Big Dill.

On page 116 of Maus II, by Art Spiegelman, Art is asks about the whereabouts of Vladek's family after hearing about his mother's. This page contains a mixture of "moment-to-moment" transitions when Art is positioning himself more comfortably on his father's couch to listen to his father's story and a section of "aspect-to-aspect" transitions on the left side of the page which focuses on different parts of Vladek sitting down and breaking him up into different panels. In this way, it "sets a wandering eye on different aspects of a place, idea, or mood" (McCloud 72). By doing this, Spiegelman adds emphasis to his father's sorrow when he has to rethink about the family he has lost in the Holocaust for the sake of Art's book. Because Vladek is broken up into different panels with "gutters" in between, it seems as the choice to do so metaphorically represents the man the Holocaust created; a broken individual. This also applies to all of the victims of the Holocaust who have survived the tragedy but have lost their love ones. The only memories he has of his family are from his own recollection which may also be why the remaining pictures he has are scattered on the floor and are being given to Art. They mean nothing to him and only offer as a painful reminder of the people he lost.

Furthermore, when Spiegelman illustrates his course of action in the story in "moment-to-moment" transitions of getting comfortable on his father's couch, he somewhat critiques himself in a way that it seems like he is not particularly proud of being apathetic to what his father was feeling at the moment. This occurs throughout the story as he pesters his father for more information about his experiences during the Holocaust without acknowledging how painful is must be for Vladek to recall those memories. In showing himself in this light after his father's death, he is reflective of his actions and displays the shame in what he did by emphasizing Vladek's sorrow. This also may connect to the point that he writes in Maus I of his father and him not being close. His insensitivity and obsession in completing his story made him fail to realize that Vladek genuinely enjoyed his son's company and may have only relived his painful history in order to spend time with his son.

Time is an Illusion? How Dillightful.

I guess one way I can start this blogpost, but greatly anger my audience (hi, Ms. Smit), is to talk about how both novels The Things They Carried, by Tim O'Brien, and Maus, by Art Spiegelman, are both war stories. But to evade getting a zero, I will choose to write about how both novels play with time which I hope is a little more profound. In effort of telling these war stories, both writers choose to interject the present within the act of relaying the past which is not usually done in other books that I've read. They typically tend to stick to one time period which is probably always the go-to method when writing a novel. The clashes between time periods, however, seem to add complexity to the novel's plot and be more than just another war story. In Maus, Spiegelman begins his story with a brief anecdote of his childhood and then carries on to the beginning events of gathering his father's war story. In a way, the comic develops into a frametale. As the reader continues and learns about Vladek's experience in the Holocaust, he is exposed to Vladek of the past and present. This also occurs in The Things They Carried where the reader is living in Timmy's experiences and seeing how these events formed Tim who is brought in when the story shifts into the present. Both characters are obviously afflicted from the war with their similarities of an inability to be truly content and habits formed from the war (Tim O'Brien evidently carries a detached tone throughout the novel and Vladek refuses to throw things away which may stem from him having to be resourceful in the war). These effects are greatly enhanced with the juxtaposition of time and also offers the narrator to inject their own personal feelings about their history and layers two stories into one which is, in a way, interesting. (it's especially interesting in Maus with the cliffhanger of Art calling his father a murderer in anger of him destroying Anja's journals, a great resource for different viewpoints of the Holocaust).

You Mean a REALLY Great Dill to Me

In Game of Thrones, Brienne of Tarth, cold due to the rejection and scorn she has experienced throughout her life (mostly due to her lack in a "feminine" appearance in Westerosi standards) she is tasked with keeping Jaime Lannister alive and bring him to his punishment. During this time, he shows her genuine kindness which is usual for the poor, alienated Brienne. It is in these moments where her  extreme loyalty begins to bud for Sir Jaime Lannister. For those who are unaware, her loyalty is sworn upon her life. Later on, when given the chance to prove her loyalty to someone else by slaying Jaime... I will stop here to evade any spoilers. This is likewise to the relationship between Antonio and Sebastian in Acts 3 and 4 in Twelfth Night, a play written by Shakespeare. During these acts, Antonio tells Sebastian that he cannot come into town due to his criminal reputation and if he happened to be found he would be jailed. Sensing something was wrong, Antonio makes and appearance to town to save Sebastian who happens to be Viola instead. By doing this, he is recognized and jailed for the trouble he has caused.

In both of the sitations, Brienne and Jaime, and Antonio and Sebastian, there has been a sort of unspoken love between the rescuer and victim, whether the relationship is heterosexual or homosexual.

Secretly, I've hoped for a romance between Brienne and Jaime because come on, look at how heartbreaking and sad it is when she has to leave him :(

You Mean A Great Dill to Me

In Aziz Ansari's Modern Romance, it was quite interesting to see how love has revolutionized throughout time. He pointed out that many seniors in the rest home he visited ended up marrying an individual who was close to home which might not be the case now. With the advancement of educational opportunities, the sea where many fish are to be found, has expanded tremendously. We have all throughout our educational lives to find "the one" because 1. education is heavily stressed upon over family (arguably, that is) 2. women have the equal opportunity education which alleviates the pressure of their future depending on a man (independence, YAAAAS). Khaleesi being forced into marriage to Khal Drogo is a perfect example of society's use of courtship in the past to what it has revolutionized to now (she did, however, eventually fall in love with the dude)
On the other hand, it is also interesting to see that in this wider sea of suitors to pick from we have consequently become more "cold" and impersonal in our habits of confessing our love to someone. As Americans, we're know to be appear "cold" in human interactions especially in the way we greet each other* but it is significant that this "coldness" is appearing in all parts of the world with the initiation of romance through technology. Throughout my middle school days and early freshman year I fantasized about being swept off my feet from a boy who makes admiring looks from afar to the point where the looks weren't satisfying enough and eventually worked up the guts to ask me out. Well, that didn't happen. My first relationship was initiated on Facebook messenger and Snapchat. Maybe I dwell too much on the past and its chivalrous outlook on love, but I personally don't care for the idea of it being commonly acceptable to initiate and end a relationship through text or and other mode that is isn't personal. In the past, lovers used letters or their mode of communication and boy, were they troopers. Does that mean that the equivalent of sending a text to someone is actually having to send a crow in Game of Thrones? How inconvenient.

*in countries of Hispanic influence it is customary to greet someone warmly with a kiss on the cheek

Pickle-ing Yourself Ain't the Only Option

Throughout the works of Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe, Game of Thrones by George R.R. Martin, Romeo & Juliet by William Shakespeare, the authors choose to archetypally depict defiance through a character's suicide In all three works, things began to fall apart as the conflicts of their worlds that were put against them continued to increase in severity when,  Okonkwo returns to a whitewashed clan, Tommen is betrayed by his own mother, and Juliet is to be married to Paris. In looking at the surface, it can be obviously seen that these events caused a rift in emotional imbalance leading to them ignoring their own instinct of survival, however these characters all share one trait; defiance.

After returning home after seven years of exile, much of the culture of the Igbo people has been compromised from colonization. Okonkwo, ironically benefits from this event; he retains his rich culture. Upon returning the a whitewashed village, he becomes shocked at the events that have transpired. After all, he planned to accomplish his dreams of becoming the head of his people. In his refusal to assimilate to Christian beliefs, he is punished. With his choice to hang himself, however, he enacts his last feat of defiance. He symbolically hangs himself to a tree in the Evil Forest to mark the death of the Igbo culture and his extreme loyalty to it. After all, it is tradition for sinners to die in the Evil Forest.

Tommen, who becomes king after his brother's poisoning, is given more responsibility than he can handle in his raw age. In my opinion, I always viewed him as a very weak character due to his immaturity and inability to make decisions on his own. I however, understand the reason behind this flaw and acknowledge it. As conflicts begin to arise within the Tyrells, with the accusations of lying under oath and being gay, the two Tyrell grandchildren are arrested and eventually killed by the hands of Cersei, Tommen's mother. After realizing that his own mother killed his wife, whom he loved very much, and undermined his rule for her benefit, he kills himself in defiance of accepting the betrayal of his own mother who is ironically is meant to be the one he could seek comfort in (alluding to one of the passages in Things Fall Apart)

In the play Romeo & Juliet it is no secret that the star-crossed lovers end up dying. In their time together, they felt as if the passion they experienced was meant to be for life and so, they devised a plan to secretly get married. Through some miscommunication, Romeo drinks poison after seeing that Juliet is "dead". Juliet, after seeing that Romeo is actually dead, stabs herself. As bluntly as I stated it, it's basically what happens in the play. With their choice to kill themselves, they also illustrate defiance in accepting their fate that was influenced by a feud who's reason was long forgotten.
Star-crossed. Hello? Not meant to be.

Donut Do It.

After school today, Pickles, despite not having much money to her name, decided to buy timbits even though she knew she didn't need it. After all, she did have a coupon for a pack of ten timbits for $1. After ordering, she quickly tacked on a frozen hot chocolate. Instead of her bill being $1, she paid $3.64. If she knew she was broke, why did she do such a thing?

This past week, Pickles, also known as Angelica, has been stressed beyond a doubt with her debut, a traditional Filipino celebration honoring a girl on her 18th birthday, and life's responsibilities that were exponentially increasing. There seems to never be enough hours in the day to finish everything that needed to be done. A few examples would be studying for anatomy, designing shirts, and struggling through calculus. For this reason, Pickles weighted her responsibilities and let the least important become repressed. Today, after having her design rejected and having to create another one and coming home struggling to calculus, she needed to displace her stress into buying food she didn't need. With her buying the donuts being her superego's first failure, her additional purchase of the frozen hot chocolate explicates the complete control of her id and a pathetic excuse for an ego. The ego and superego whispered, "donut do it" and the id retorted with, "treat yo self". Chocolate is the one thing that pleases her and what did she get? Ten chocolate timbits and a frozen hot chocolate.

Love Isn't Valid Tender for My Heart, Sorry.

Throughout my exposure in LIT and lit, I have made the obvious observation that love can often be an afterthought when considering marriage. In Game of Thrones, Viserys Targaryen married off his own sister without a second thought in exchange for 10,000 men that were meant to aid him in taking back the Iron Throne (too bad he dies). The fact that it is acceptable to trade her off like a hunk of meat enrages my inner feminist. Likewise, the pitiful character of Mrs. Bennet in Pride & Prejudice, by Jane Austen, is fixated in marrying her daughters off; it is her sole, life purpose. When a marriage opportunity appears for her least favorite daughter, she is ecstatic. That man, however, is Mr. Collins and is literally the comic relief and one of Austen's greatest satirical devices of the novel.

Throughout Victorian literature, critiques on its own society is one of its major tenets. It is obviously not an accident that the Bennets' property is an entailment with its future heir being the pathetic Mr. Collins. This entailment forces the family into losing their property because it must be inherited by a male. The manner Austen crafts Mr. Collins, however, further showcases the absurdity of this custom. It is incredibly difficult to put into words how dense this man is. One matter that would describe his obtuseness is when Darcy is openly contemptuous to him in conversation but does not realize and mistakes it as a cordial conversation. His response to Elizabeth's response to his hand in marriage is also an A1 example:

 Mrs. Bennet's response alone to Elizabeth's refusal in the proposal can spark criticism due to her narrow goal of marrying her daughter off, despite his character and with her only filter being his status. This brings me to my next point of the role of women in Victorian society. After Elizabeth denies Mr. Collins, Ms. Charlotte Lucas, her neighbor, becomes his Plan B and accepts. She exclaims this acceptance with,

"I am not romantic, you know; I never was. I ask only a comfortable home; and considering Mr. Collins' character, connection, and situation in life, I am convinced that my chance of happiness with him is as fair as most people can boast on entering the marriage state" (Austen 109).

Without a husband of good status, women are frowned upon in this society. It is archetypal to use marriage to benefit two parties, with those two parties not necessarily being either the groom or bride. In this instance, Jane and Elizabeth are both pressured into marrying as they continue to age and are also teased of ending up as "old maids" if they do not make themselves appear to be more desirable; this notion expresses the attitude of society's objectification of women. In my opinion, I admired Elizabeth's courage to refuse Mr. Collins even if it meant losing all ties to the Longbourn estate and less admirable with Charlotte's contentedness with "comfort". On a more worldly basis, however, this idea of marrying one of good status is practiced currently in arranged marriages which continues to divide my opinion on love induced marriages or those regarding status. In Austen's portrayal of the situation, I see the absurdity of the practice, especially with a man as pompous as Mr. Collins, but with my past research of arranged marriages, it has been proven to be effective.

All in all, Mr. Collin's obtuse dill-igence is too funny to not notice.