The Blurred Distinction

"I believe people need beliefs. If I didn't have my belief, I really don't know what would happen." Ursula Le Guin, SQ

Just before I could continue reading, I was stopped by this quote. The quote in itself inspired me to keep reading; it let me know that this story would be one that I would find both intriguing and thought provoking. SQ invites its audience to question the line of sanity versus insanity. Before I begin, let us first consider that line. Societal norms and beliefs not only form normalcy and define it, but it also helps us to distinguish what "sanity" generally looks like. Today, what is sane has loosened and become a matter of artistic perception. We no longer look at erratic behavior and deem it "insane". Instead, we observe and consider what the behavior exhibited means and what the person projecting it is aiming to express. Nonetheless, it is our beliefs that helps us to distinguish and define sanity or normalcy.

In the story, you'll find that the quote provided stands as a recurrent theme or underlining premise throughout the story's entirety. What strikes me is not the invention of sanity testing nor is it Mary Ann's overwhelmingly dillusioned admiration for Dr. Speakie. It's the idea that without a belief of some kind in place within our society, there would essentially be no way to determine what is normal and what isn't. Insanity and sanity would not exist. Insanity versus genius is one debate that answer lies within each beholder. You'll find Mary Ann's belief, that was asserted and stood firm from the beginning, helped her to maintain the idea that Dr. Speakie was a genius in all that he strived to do. While his very sanity was regularly questioned, it did not change the belief of Mary Ann Smith. Her perception allowed her to see something else. Yet, we find there is no test that can determine what is abnormal. Even the very test conceived and birthed by Dr. Speakie was the very same test that proved him to be even more insane than his wife. 

I, personally, know that without my beliefs, the world around me would cease to exist as I know it. I can't even imagine life differently. To me, an alternative belief, while it exists, doesn't convey accuracy. Mary Ann felt the same way. I truly appreciated this quote. It's one I have previously spoken, and one I find to frightening to apply to my personal reasoning. 

The Most Unrecognized Weapon

"God makes some men poets. Some, He makes kings, some beggars. Me-- He made a hunter.”- Richard Connell, The Most Dangerous Game

In Richard Connell’s The Most Dangerous Game, we are first introduced to a group of passengers aboard a yacht that is Rio de Janeiro bound. A mysterious and perilous island is recognized by a passenger named Whitney, in which case she reveals to protagonist Rainsford. Later on, Rainsford meets with the island first hand as he accidently falls into the sea, is left by the yacht and is then forced to swim towards the island. There, he encounters a general with an obsessive love for the hunt named Zaroff and his deaf and blind accomplice, Ivan. The General, who is well aware of Rainsford hunting reputation, caters to Rainsford-- that is until Rainsford discovers the truth. The General makes a game out of hunting down people, a game he has grown bored with since he decides that people no longer pose a challenge. Rainsford who does not condone this wants to leave the island, but not only does The General reject this, he also makes Rainsford’s stay a game—if he can survive 3 days as prey, he will be set free. In the end, we find that The General is eaten by his own dogs or in fact beaten by his own game, while Rainsford sleeps comfortably.

In the quote provided, The General provides some logic into his love for the hunt by proclaiming this insightful message. To an extent, I believe he is right. God assigns gifts to everyone. Those with a natural talent and passion to write are deemed writers, some people are born into royalty. Because he was skilled at what he did, The General believed his gift was to hunt. While I hardly believe that he was given the gift to kill instinctively, I do believe this idea exposes something deeper.

A gift, if used effectively and if mastered, has the power to change lives and influence a society. Conversely, a gift that is abused or mastered with ill-intentions has the power to do just the same—but the results are likely to have a negative impact. The General’s gift was misused. The quote and the General’s overall character also reminded me that what one defines one’s self to be irrefutably shapes his/her life. If I were to tell myself every day “I’m a writer”, that would (and has) shape the direction of my life. Believed and practiced affirmations can determine what and who someone becomes. In broader yet simpler terms, a gift is a talent that becomes a weapon once recognized, yet it stands unrecognized for many. 

A Death at Owl Creek Bridge

“Death is a dignitary who when he comes announced is to be received with formal manifestations of respect, even by those most familiar with him. In the code of military etiquette silence and fixity are forms of deference.” Ambrose Bierce, An Occurrence on Owl Creek Bridge, Part 1

In Bierce’s short story, we are introduced to a man impending death who is later revealed to be Peyton Farquhar. Farquhar, who diligently sought to help the southern cause by attempting to join the Confederate Army, was being prepared to be hung at Owl Creek Bridge. What led to this was an unexpected visit from an inconspicuous Northern scout. Believing that the soldier who stopped at his home for a drink of water was a Confederate soldier, he asked him questions on how to support the cause and come against the efforts of the Northerners. The soldier explains to him that anyone conspiring against the Northerners would be hung.

 The disguised Northern soldier accepts the water and rides away. Now in Farquhar’s last moments, he considers just how he can escape from this death sentence. Once he is hung, he imagines himself falling into the creek, escaping strangulation. He releases his bounded hands and makes it past fire attempts to annihilate him. Finally, it seems he escapes and finds his way home to meet his beautiful wife when he is suddenly struck with a bright light. Farquhar was dead all along, and his lifeless body was left hung at the edge of Owl Creek Bridge.

The quote provided was particularly striking. It personified death in such a way, that it made you consider it with respect. While I’ll never view death in this way personally, I can definitely understand what Bierce is trying to convey. The quote explains that death is a dignitary, a figure or concept of prestige. It seems that because death is so certain, when it comes ‘announced’ or rather when approaching death is known, because it physically cannot be fought, it should be respected as a dignitary. Those familiar with it, like soldiers, understand this concept and treat it as such. Once death succeeds at its plot to steal, the body becomes a still and lifeless carcass. Military etiquette teaches soldiers to emulate death’s trace as it approaches.

While I don’t believe that death should be respected, I appreciate the concept drawn and the quote provided by Bierce for the poetry it is.  The quote was definitely used to foreshadow what would be the fate of Peyton Farquhar. 

God of Love

“You can’t control who you love. You can’t control who loves you. You can’t control how it happens or when it happens or why it happens. You can’t control any of that stuff.” –God of Love, 2011

The 2011 Academy Award nominated short film, God of Love is centered behind a hopeless romantic man named Ray, who is love sick with a woman named Kelly who just so happens to love his fellow band mate and best friend, Fozzie. In the beginning, we watch Ray pray to an unspecified god for the first time to help Kelly view him as desirable. After a year of consistently praying for the same thing, the answer comes to the dart-wizard in the form of a love arrow. Reminiscent of a modern day cupid, Ray plots to make Kelly fall in love with him by stabbing her with an arrow designed to make the love interest carry strong feelings leaving them more susceptible to fall in love with the desiring person. After failing to make Kelly fall in with him, Ray resolves to pair up Kelly and Fozzie. By the story’s end, he restates the opening quote, which is provided above, and concludes that he is the god of love.

Other than the movie being so detailed, comedic, and insightful at just 19 minutes long, the quote above was what intrigued me most about the movie. It was a concept established from the beginning and tied the story together in the end. It’s reality. You can’t control who you love, and just what makes you love you've fallen for. All we feel we are in control of daily is completely irrelevant when considering the concept of love. More often, love makes us selfless. You see by the story’s end, Ray becomes completely selfless when he induces the relationship between Fozzie and Kelly.

Though his attempts were comical, it doesn't negate the fact that love stories are all based on this premise: the inability to control who you love. Often times, the conflict revolves around this-- The world not understanding what one feels and the two parties involved being the only two who understand. God of Love is a truly thoughtful short story. It vividly depicts this idea in black and white. You don’t need color to define what love is. As boundless as the feeling can be, the truth is, love just is what it is. 

The Joy That Kills

“When the doctors came they said she had died of heart disease—of the joy that kills. “ The Story of an Hour, Kate Chopin

 In Chopin’s short story, the audience is introduced to young and heart-disease ridden, Mrs. Mallard. Her husband was said to have died in a terrible train accident and breaking the news to her became the unfortunate responsibility of her sister, Josephine and her late husband’s friend, Richards. The story reveals that Mrs. Mallard didn’t react as others who hear of grief. She wasn’t so shocked that she couldn’t grieve; in fact, Mrs. Mallard was filled with woe and devastation immediately upon hearing the news. After completely isolating herself to grieve in privacy, Mrs. Mallard continues to sob inconsolably when she senses an unfamiliar feeling approaching. After trying to suppress it, she realizes that she couldn’t fight it.

The story reads that “her bosom rose and fell tumultuously” which foreshadowed the heart attack in process. After stumbling upon the realization that the years ahead would bring freedom, Mrs. Mallard finds joy beyond grief. She is sure that pain will find her once her eyes rests upon the cold corpse of her late husband, but she resolves that the pain would only be temporary. The freedom was sure to last for years to come. In all irony, a very-alive Mr. Mallard returns home unaware that an accident had even taken place, but by that time his wife’s heart failed after experiencing true happiness.

Now, we see that while sobbing, Mrs. Mallard “sees the light.” At first, it seemed as if Mrs. Mallard died from sheer happiness, but it seems to me that death was approaching far before. It was “the light” that helped her to see what life would have been like long after she stopped grieving. It can very well be interpreted that Mrs. Mallard had an epiphany or revelation that led to her death; that somewhere in the midst of her tears, she found tears of joy. BUT her “bosom rose and fell tumultuously” long before such revelations were realized. This means that the approaching death helped her to see the beauty of her life. She knew she would mourn yes, but she knew she’d live past that. After all, she didn’t love him all the time. She was finally free and she couldn’t shake the joy that came with this revelation. In fact, the joy was strong enough to cut the ties she had to this life altogether. If the grief couldn’t kill her, the sheer joy had to. The story was truly ironic indeed.

The Ones Who Couldn't Stay

“The trouble is that we have a bad habit, encouraged by pedants and sophisticates, of considering happiness as something rather stupid. Only pain is intellectual, only evil interesting. This is the treason of the artist: a refusal to admit the banality of evil and the terrible boredom of pain.” –Ursula K. Le Guin’s The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas, p. 76

In Ursula K Le Guin’s short story, The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas, readers are introduced to a frighteningly idealistic community called Omelas. At first, Omelas seems like the perfect place to live in. Le Guin maps out cheerful citizens, bountiful music as part of a magical festival and all that genuine happiness looks like throughout a perfect setting. For quite some time, readers are persuaded to see the beauty of that city—that is, until the condition is revealed. Locked away in a grotesque prison is a malnourished and severely neglected child. In order for the utopian society to persist, the child must live in impossible conditions. The child sleeps on his/her own feces, is fed only corn meal and grease hastily, and lives in a basement replete with absolute darkness. The citizens of Omelas know this, and some often visit him. Yet, you’ll find those who are exposed to that reality do one of two things: continue inhabiting the city with little contact of the young child or become among the small group of the ones who walk away from Omelas.

The quote provided sheds light as to why the ultimate sacrifice for this city would be the imprisonment of a child. Consider a child. Children are naive and pain is merely a concept understood as a result of aging. A child doesn't believe happiness is stupid, in fact, a child’s main goal is to be happy as much as possible. Children don’t understand “growing pains” at first. Only adults have concluded that wisdom is a product of pain endured and lessons learned. A child’s happiness possesses innocence. It is neither complex nor complicated. Even if a child believes he/she needs something specific to be happy, after some time, a true child is content with enjoying anything that is even slightly interesting. We have a bad habit of acknowledging pain more than happiness. Yes, we understand happiness more after the presence of pain, but there is nothing like naive, unstoppable happiness. The constant urge and drive to find happiness without the complexity of understanding consequences.

Now the story’s introduction poses a significant question: would you pay this price to live in a Utopian society? Would you sacrifice a child’s development and overall life for the happiness of your own? I can’t say that I would. I believe that this life was established from the very beginning. We as human beings cannot produce perfection nor can we imitate and attempt to build it. Underneath all of the happiness filled throughout Omelas, there was still an underlying sadness for its citizens who knew what was being sacrificed. Underlying sadness contends with complete happiness.  Since you find, even in this story, that absolute happiness is unattainable, that means perfection is just as impossible to possess or create. A Utopian society is impossible to create for many reasons, but of them all one stands out—There is always someone somewhere who is unhappy with the way things are.

This is What it Means to Say 'I Understand'

“We are all given one thing by which our lives are measured, one determination. Mine are the stories which can change or not change the world. It doesn’t matter which as long as I continue to tell the stories.” -Sherman Alexie, This is What it Means to say Phoenix Arizona

In Alexie’s short story, readers are initially introduced to pure-blooded Indian, Victor, who just lost his job and unfortunately enough, his father. Needing to make arrangements and claim his father’s small inheritance, Victor finds himself in front of the Tribal Council pleading for financial help. Victor is then forced to try and make do with the small change he is given to travel to Phoenix, Arizona. At this point, the audience meets the story’s strange but noble hero—Thomas Build-a-fire. Thomas and Victor had grown together, but Thomas’ love for story-telling seemed to drift him away from both Victor and his community. Nonetheless, we find that though Victor had once beaten Thomas in a drunken rage at the age of fifteen, Thomas still offers to help in exchange for his accompaniment along the trip. With no other choice, Victor reluctantly accepts all the while remembering the times the two spent together as children.

The provided quote helps readers to understand Thomas’ character even more. At first glance, it seems he might be in his own world, but after learning that he grew up with little family, it becomes evident just why Thomas lives to tell stories-- a reason I completely identify with. Thomas explains that we are all given one gift that makes us who we are, and these gifts motivate our very pursuits and mold the perceptions that the world carries for us. Thomas’ gift was story telling. He understands that his stories hold the power and possibility of changing the world. To him, it doesn't matter who is listening to judge or listening to understand. As long as someone is listening, give it be an animal, his gift was still being used. He still had his stories to deem friends.  I, myself, can understand his logic.

I write. It is my one determination. I write short stories and extensive one’s quite often. Though I am not as bold as Thomas to share these stories, it doesn't change the fact that I am ready to write at moment's notice. I write to understand and to fill inadequate spaces in my life, just as Thomas does. Thomas lost his mother, father and never had any siblings. His story telling has become all of those relationships for him. He visions and shares, as I do myself. Any gift given and mastered has a greater likelihood of greatly affecting the world. I've always believed that. Thomas isn't a strange man merely staying true to a promise he made years in advance, he is a person who has mastered his craft and no longer needs approval from anyone to understand nor accept it. Consider even his tribal name—Build-a-Fire. Typically, when a group or tribe is camping, a fire is built. Once everyone encircles that flame, stories are inevitably told. This idea in itself alludes to the idea that Thomas was meant to tell stories from the very beginning. The aforementioned quote just helps readers to grasp that idea while providing an insightful undertone that calls us all to both embrace and master our gifts.   

Zora Neale Hurston's "Sweat"

“Oh well, whatever goes over the devil’s back, is got to come under his belly. Sometime or ruther, Sykes, like everybody else is gointer reap his sowing.” Zora Neale Hurston’s Sweat, part 1

In Zora Neale Hurston’s, “Sweat” we witness the physical and emotionally abusive relationship protagonist Delia Jones endures. A devout Christian and wash-woman, the timid Delia finally stands up to her long-time abusive husband, Sykes, armed with an iron skillet. She is aware that her husband has been having an extramarital affair with a robust woman named Bertha, and as Delia maintains her work and “wifely” duties, her husband Sykes remains both cold and indifferent towards her. Members of the community who have held witness to this as well informally suggests that someone should kill Sykes and his mistress for how he treats his hard-working wife. Nonetheless, after standing up to him for the first time, Delia recites the above-mentioned quote.

Throughout the story, readers will find Biblical and spiritual references. The story makes the antagonist, Sykes, not just the villain but the devil himself. Nonetheless, as the basis of Christian belief is founded upon, each action has a subsequent reaction. Consequences are dealt by God himself. While Karma is named differently in this respect, the concept remains the same. Instead, Delia proclaims that Sykes will eventually “reap what he sows” or gets what he gives/deserves. The quote in itself foreshadows the story’s conclusion. As Sykes brings home a snake (also a Biblical reference to the devil) to frighten Delia and get her out of the place he promised his mistress, we find that Delia’s confident resolution occurred just as she had anticipated.

In the midst of broken English and soft parables, the reader finds the story conclusion to be anything but ironic. Some might consider what happened to Sykes coincidental, but since the Bible in itself reminds its followers that “Enemies shall be made one’s footstool,” the fact that Sykes called out for Delia in his final moments in need of her help proves the concept of God’s provision to be so. Zora Neale Hurston embeds Biblical references throughout this story to help readers stumble upon the underlying message. It is often said, especially in Southern places like the one Delia is evidently from, that “when a man is digging a hole for someone, he better dig two.” Simply meaning that ill-treatment against others is often rewarded with self-destruction. 

Gradual Insanity--Poe's Tell Tale Heart

The Tell Tale Heart

“Whenever it fell upon me, my blood ran cold; and so by degrees—very gradually—I made up my mind to take the life of the old man, and thus rid myself of the eye forever. Now this is the point. You fancy me mad. Madmen know nothing.”—Edgar Alan Poe’s The Tell-Tale Heart, page 1

In Edgar Alan Poe’s The Tell-Tale Hart, readers are taken for a ride when deep disdain becomes obsession and questionable insanity. The narrator, who is caretaker for an old man, explains that though the old man himself was indeed pleasant, his personal characteristics could not save him as one physical attribute stood out among the rest. The old man possessed a pale blue eye dressed with a chilling white film. In the excerpt provided above, you’ll see just how the narrator felt about the eye. He says that, “Whenever it fell upon me, my blood ran cold; and so by degrees—very gradually—I made up my mind to take the life of the old man…” That is to say that, whenever he and the eye met each other’s glance, it chilled him, made him shutter. After which, you’ll find Poe plays on the idea by adding: “and so by degrees—very gradually—I made up my mind to take the life of the old man.” This excerpt alone is very powerful as it explains just how that narrator came to what he believed to be a rational decision.

Each time he saw the eye, his blood ran cold and gradually he became so cold that the only conclusion he felt made perfect sense was to commit murder. He grew colder and colder against the old man, gradually he became more and more indifferent to him as a person. His scorn became less and less tolerable and just as degrees gradually drops—once an unbearable degree is reached, if no intervention or interference is available to those who feel it, lives are ultimately threatened and taken. Now faced with an intolerable distaste, the narrator falls upon this supposition-- The eye would not go away unless it ceased to open.
Throughout the story, the narrator then challenges his readers to distinguish the difference between genius and insanity. He reminds us that though his decision ‘may seem’ irrational, the steps taken to proceed with the action were, indeed, the steps of a clever man because “madmen know nothing.” By recreating the meticulous steps he took, resolutions he made, and nonchalant behavior towards the old man, he attempts to persuade readers into believing that he made a perfectly rational decision and he intelligently executed it. This idea is maintained until the story’s end. If somehow, someone still maintained his sanity throughout the story, the final scene proves otherwise. By the story's demising events,  the narrator's "brink" of insanity manifests into a full mental-breakdown once an unforgiving conscience works in the old man's defense. The quote provided stood as a premise for the entire recount. Insanity versus genius-- a theme that carried out until the story’s shocking end.