Shakespeare Survivor: The Tribe Has Spoken

In a moment of celestial alignment the season finale of Survivor: San Juan del Sur occurred just seconds after I finished that lovely little drama Othello by that little known Bard (one might say a Shakespeare-Survivor syzygy). Being a superfan of both Shakespearean drama and reality TV I watched both. Also, in a flash of cosmic coincidence, the subtitle of this season’s Survivor was "Blood vs. Water" in which loved ones competed against each other, how Meta, but I’m getting off topic. The proximity of these two events sparked a fire of Iago fan boy-ism that I cannot contain. Without a doubt Iago is the greatest super villain of all time. If you disagree, I apologize, but you are wrong. Seeing the finale, and therefore a recap of the season, I cannot help but notice how amazing Iago would be on a reality/strategy TV show like Survivor or Big Brother. As resident strategy expert and ambassador on this journey through Shakespearean reality television, let me be your guide. The first rule to being any good at playing Survivor is that you need to be cunning. You need to see three moves down the line and do anything to keep yourself alive in the game. Exhibit A-Z: Iago. From the moment the play starts and Iago sets this wheel in motion he is in absolute control. He anticipates the disagreeableness of drunken Cassio, the gullibility of trustworthy Othello, and the intense desire of love-struck Roderigo. His plan has been formulated to compensate for all variables in human behavior and he has several fallbacks. Like when Roderigo and Cassio are about to fight. Iago explains to the audience that regardless of who dies Iago comes out beneficial. Rule number two of winning Survivor is having a tight alliance. You need people who you can trust and who can trust you. Iago has this category pretty locked up with friends on all sides of the ball. He befriends Roderigo from the beginning, always reminding him that his intentions are at heart. He gains the trust of Othello after years of servitude. He earns the trust of Cassio after pledging to aid his cause. These three characters form what is known in the world of strategy as a shield. If something goes wrong, Iago has protected himself from all sides and someone else can, and will, take the fall instead of him. This leads into rule number 3, ruthlessness. At the end of the day it’s all about you and Iago knows this. Some of the greatest people to ever play the game of Survivor have taken those closest to them all the way to the end and then cut them when they needed to. You need to keep them close enough that you can stab them in the back when the time comes. You use them for as long as they are worth and then dispose of them before they can figure out your plan. Iago easily disposes of Roderigo and Othello, but makes one mistake: underestimating Cassio. Iago tries to let him loose but he survives. This is ultimately the fall of Iago. Having said this, and because Iago is presumably still alive, I believe Iago would be able to win a modern-day Survivor. Iago is extremely intelligent and is able to see the impact of his decisions down the road. Iago has created a shield around him so that he is protected from any accusations with multiple scapegoats. Iago has also kept his allies close enough that he can turn on them at a moment’s notice in order to benefit himself. That is what makes Iago, not only the best fictional Survivor player to ever not play the game, but also the mastermind of all masterminds.

Be the Change You Want to See in the World

Othello vs. Oedipus? In a surprising turn of events I find myself having enjoyed two plays in under a month. I was taken aback. This is completely unlike me. I like fiction and fantasy, not drama. I found myself searching for an answer to this almighty question. I thought about the plot of each play and the setting, but nothing really jumped out at me. Then it hit me like a sword in the darkness: the protagonist. In both the plays, Othello and Oedipus (note how they both start with O, very important), the main character is the epitome of a dramatic hero. Oedipus is the glorious champion over the Sphinx, praised by all in Thebes. Othello, similarly, is the decorated war captain, revered by many. Each man finds himself in a terrible scenario at the fault of his own gullibility. Othello believes too much in the honesty of Iago and Oedipus has convinced himself that he is absent of evil and wrongdoing. What made me feel so connected to each of these men, and as a result the play as a whole, was their willingness to purge themselves of this figurative blindness and get down to brass tacks. Essentially, to man up. This sudden restoration of clear-headedness is what made me so ensconced in each work. I could identify with these men and learn a lesson. That even though they had been set back, misled, had failed, they took it upon themselves to make the difference (however extremely they did). Oedipus decided, as an act of strength, to blind himself. He could not handle what the world he lived in looks like and made the decision to shield himself from such abnormality. Othello sees all the things that he has done wrong and takes himself out of this world. By punishing himself he pays the ultimate price of death. While both men take their penance a little too far, I agree with the decisions they make. Gandhi once said, “Be the change you want to see in the world.” In my heart I know that Oedipus and Othello both believed this and lived their lives in this way.

Murder, MURDER!

Noticing my blog dominated by short stories and novels I have decided to write about a poem. Now, don’t expect this to be your average romantic, lovey-dovey, rose petals on a park bench kind of poem. No, oh no, this is about MURDER! The poem is titled Ten Little Indians and has been around for ages. The poem started as an Irish folk song in the 1800's but has been changed and adapted over time. The “Indians” have been change to soldiers, niggers, sailors, or roosters over time but the verses remain mostly the same. Here is one version of the poem:

Ten little Indian boys went out to dine;

One choked his little self and then there were nine.

Nine little Indian boys sat up very late;

One overslept himself and then there were eight.

Eight little Indian boys travelling in Devon;

One said he'd stay there and then there were seven.

Seven little Indian boys chopping up sticks;

One chopped himself in halves and then there were six.

Six little Indian boys playing with a hive;

A bumblebee stung one and then there were five.

Five little Indian boys going in for law;

One got in Chancery and then there were four.

Four little Indian boys going out to sea;

A red herring swallowed one and then there were three.

Three little Indian boys walking in the zoo;

A big bear hugged one and then there were two.

Two little Indian boys playing in the sun;

One got all frizzled up and then there was one.

One little Indian boy left all alone;

He went out and hanged himself and then there were none.

Perhaps the main reason I like the poem is the mystery. In two instances the poem has appeared in a larger story as an omen to when a killer may strike and who the next victim will be. In Agatha Christie’s novel And Then There Were None the poem is used to follow ten dinner guest as they are killed off one by one. In online giant Roosterteeth’s interactive mystery show Ten Little Roosters fans can follow along and guess the victims using slightly edited version of the poem in which the killer is killed and a survivor is left standing. The popularity of the poem comes from its unique use of literary techniques and devices. The first thing the reader notices is the parallelism between each verse. Each successive verse counts down the remaining victims as there is one less each verse. The syntax of each verse is also paralleled with the Indians performing a certain action before the death of another is detailed. Another technique that connects adjacent verses is the end rhyme. In addition to rhyme the reader sees a distinct rhythm. The repeated pattern of stressed, unstressed, unstressed syllables indicates a dactylic meter. The meter paired with the rhyme help keep the poem moving and maintain a flow. While I like the poem for its meaning and mystery, I feel myself drawn back to it again and again because of the excellent use of the most basic literary devices.

A Terrible Twist with Terrible Sprinkles and Terrible on Top

Since everyone is doing blog posts on The Secret Agent, I will not! I shall write about the excellent novel The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway. The Old Man and the Sea is a great novel to analyze for two things: plot twists and long, boring sections of nothingness. In my opinion, The Old Man and the Sea is about two times as long as it has to be. From page fourteen to thirty-five all the old man is doing is holding a fishing line. Ernest Hemingway could have easily inserted a couple sentences to explain how long the old man sat in the boat holding the line. Instead he chooses to bore the reader with twenty-one pages of absolute solitude. That is not the purpose, however (Heming way is not Hemingway because he bored people). The purpose of this long, drawn-out narrative is to show how much this fish really means to the old man. He is willing to be dragged miles and miles into the sea, endure gashes and bruises, and practically starve to death just to catch the biggest fish of his life. During his adventure he thinks of the great baseball players of the time. The old man admires DiMaggio and McGraw and enjoys his talks with the boy about baseball. Perhaps the old man believes if he brings back a gigantic fish that he will become great and admired too. Because Hemingway details the entire journey of the old man the reader feels the same feelings he does. The reader ends up wanting to catch the fish just as badly, but why? For the prestige, for the honor. The description of the old man’s journey creates an emotional connection that cannot be broken and is why the plot twist is so gut-wrenching. The old man has finally caught the fish, not without withstanding a few injuries, and is on his way home. Suddenly a shark quickly approaches the boat. It tears at the flesh of the big fish and the blood spilled only attracts other sharks. After a struggle with several sharks the fish is gone. All that is left is a skeleton and head. The old man quietly sails home without anything worthwhile to show for his absence. This is where the reader feels the connection to the old man the strongest. Having stayed with him for the entirety of his escapade, having felt the desire to catch this fish, the reader too feels absolutely awful. The detailed account of the old man’s pursuit of not only the fish but honor and pride strengthens the fatherly connection the reader has with the old man which succeeds solely in making the terrible twist even more terrible. ITS JUST SO TERRIBLE!

The Battle of the Wooden Spatula

When the words illuminating and essential are used to describe a quotation things like alliteration, parallelism, and imagery come to mind as literary devices that include themselves in a quotation like that. Quite is the contrary in William Carlos Williams’ short story “The Use of Force.” The quotation that I think sums up the majority of the short story is, “Then the battle began.” It’s not much, just four words that give you an idea of what the situation in that tiny kitchen may have been like. It was a battle. The author does not give us any sort of indication of how long the exchange between the doctor, Mathilda, and her parents lasted but, with the use of the word battle, it is safe to say it was grueling regardless. The battle is between a doctor and a sick little girl name Mathilda. For some reason Mathilda has been hiding her sore throat from her parents for three days and the doctor is there to take a look at it. When the doctor mentions that it may be diphtheria the girl refuses to let him see down her throat. She fights back, scratching his glasses off his face, with her mouth clenched shut. That is when the doctor recounts, “Then the battle began.” On one side, the doctor will do anything possible to peer down her throat at an attempt to diagnose her and save her life. On the other hand, Mathilda protests this invasion of privacy motivated by one thing: fear. The quotation shows how, just as in a battle, both sides are not willing to surrender. The battle is not only between doctor and patient. The doctor and Mathilda are both battling the parents as well. Mathilda is being restrained by her father and coaxed by her mother in order to allow the doctor to do his job. Except as soon as they see Mathilda in any sort of pain they relinquish control back to her. She takes advantage of how much they care about her and uses it to her benefit. Because of this fickleness the doctor is extremely upset and annoyed at the parents. The parents help hold Mathilda back until he is just about to see down her throat and then they release her. If only they understood the severity of the situation then maybe they would remain steady and unwavering in their attempt to suppress her fury. The quotation, “Then the battle began,” perfectly summarizes the three conflicts of the story and gives the reader insight into the emotions of each character as they battle, literally, for life and death.

Just a Spoonful of Sugar

I feel as though William Carlos Williams’ short story “The Use of Force” came to an ending that was both sensible and appeasing. The ending of the short story is in no way the ending of the actual story, but completes the scene, open to close, that the actual story presents in a way that satisfied me as a reader. The short story ends with the doctor finally getting the diagnosis of the little girl Mathilda. He is able to get the metal spoon down her throat and see clearly that both tonsils are covered in membrane due to the diphtheria. She had been hiding her sore throat from her parents but she was not able to trump the doctor. The ending satisfied me because of the standpoint I assumed through the story. I assumed the one of two standpoints. The first standpoint, the one I agree with, is that the doctor is doing everything in his power to save this girl’s life from a deadly disease. The measures to which he must go may seem too aggressive however; he cannot let this girl die. The second standpoint is that the doctor is being too invasive and, just like the parents, who, in my opinion, are frustrating and annoying, should give in at any sign of pain from Mathilda. The parents simultaneously want her to feel better but are not willing to go to the necessary means to do so. That is why the ending satisfies me as a believer in the first standpoint. The doctor is able to diagnose the sick girl and hopefully save her life. The ending of the story finishes what the beginning of the short story started. The problem of Mathilda being sick is solved because now the doctor can treat her with the correct medications. However, the ending to the text does not end the entire story. Mathilda still needs to take the medication and do her part to cure herself and with the attitude and ferocity she brought when getting diagnosed I doubt that will be an easy task.

A Little Hero with That Protagonist?

The main character in Neal Stephenson’s epic dystopian cyberpunk fiction novel Snow Crash is Hiro Protagonist, a nerdy programmer/ pizza delivery guy from California. Without having completed the novel I am curious to see how the obvious implications of his name factor into the book’s plot. Besides identifying him as Japanese the name implies that this character is a heroic protagonist. To see exactly what the author may be saying by naming the main character this we need to define the different parts of his name. A hero is someone who despite adversity and struggle is able to show courage and determination for the greater good of a group or humanity. The Japanese name “Hiro” can be interpreted as generous, tolerant, or prosperous, all attributes of a heroic figure. Other than being a main character or prominent figure in a literary work or scenario a protagonist can also mean someone who is a champion or advocate for a cause or idea. Certain things come to mind when I read these definitions. First of all, does Hiro need to live up to a certain standard throughout the book because he has been labeled as someone who will display specific qualities and perform specific actions? I feel as though he does and he will. Hopefully Stephenson has not given away part of his story by naming the heroic protagonist Hiro Protagonist, but because of that I can understand the foreshadowing that it brings about. It is clear that at some time in the story Hiro Protagonist is going to have to act like a heroic protagonist or why give him the name in the first place. From what I read at the beginning of the novel Hiro has a long way to go before becoming the heroic protagonist of his namesake. Maybe, however, his name reflects what we all want to be, not necessarily what he is. We all want to be the center of attention and that is why we relate to stories of heroic figures on epic quests and adventures. That is how authors connect us to the text. Perhaps Stephenson is getting readers hooked because they see the potential in Hiro Protagonist of what they always wanted to be. And maybe even further, they are continuously intrigued because Hiro starts out like they are and becomes what they want to be. Regardless of what Hiro becomes I do hope the foreshadowing in his name is correct and he turns out to be one bad ass nerd hero.

Science Fiction's Newest Sub-Genre

Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash is just the latest book in a long line of books that describe a world in which the contents are not as great as the world that we currently live in. Snow Crash is considered to be an excellent example of the science fiction sub-genre of dystopian fiction, which of late has become increasingly more popular with science fiction writers. The question is however, what makes something a sub-genre? What factors distinguish a work as part of a sub-genre rather than the overall genre? (Keep in mind science fiction is itself a sub-genre of fiction.) A genre is defined as a category of literary fiction determined by literary technique, tone, content, or even length. Sub-genres are designed to more deeply describe the literary technique, tone, content, and length of these genres into more specific parts. Looking at this definition we can examine the relationship between science fiction and dystopian fiction. First, the literary technique, or literary devices, used in science fiction works needs to be more specified. In dystopian fiction flashbacks are occasionally implemented in order for the reader to understand what the world was like previous to the present time or perhaps an important event that led to a major social or economic shift that caused the world to be the way it is. Secondly, the tone of dystopian fiction tends to be centered around the hope of the main character whose ultimate goal is to change whatever terrible things are going on a make everything go back to normal. While dystopian fiction works are not cheery stories there is always an underlying tone of hopefulness that one day all will be righted. Thirdly, the content of dystopian fiction works is what most clearly sets them apart from any other sub-genre of science fiction. While the majority of science fiction focuses on cool, advanced technology and the adventures people have with it dystopian fiction focuses on how that new technology was harnessed by the wrong person, for the wrong reasons. This is dystopian fiction’s strongest evidence in its consideration as a sub-genre. Lastly, the length of these particular works is not really of any importance to how the story develops. What the story is written about is more important than how long it is. Considering these four elements of genre one can make the case that dystopian fiction can be considered its own sub-genre of science fiction.