Part Five of Darkmans

I am currently on part five of Darkmans by Nicola Barker, and the plot just keeps thickening, and keeps adding more twists and turns. I would like to make some predictions as to what will happen in the latter half of the book.

For one thing, I think that the John character is the man Dory becomes when he is not himself, which is why he does not recognize anything, even his wife, and why he is crazy. Fleet is aware of this, and Elen is at least aware that he is not himself at these times, because she gets very upset when Fleet calls Dory John. Peta and Ann are somehow in cohorts with John, perhaps having something to do with the mysterious painting. And perhaps the main character being the past is actually refering to John, who is from the past. John is also abusive to Elen. We learn this when Fleet tells Charles, "No. He's not my friend because he hurt my mama." And then, the assurance of the fact, when "Fleet pushed up the sleeve of his mother's jacket, revealing the fading ring of bruises around her wrist." The only thing that confuses me on this topic, is if Elen got those bruises from Dory while he was John, what was she doing hurting herself with the lighter in an earlier scene? And why was she hiding the trian schedule from Dory in the first place?
Since I'm pretty sure that the special thing about Gerry was that she had some STD, that leaves Kane, Gerry, Gaffar, and Kane all as insignificant characters in regards to the past. However, I don't think that they will end up as such, or maybe they will represent the future overcoming the past in a necessary advancement. If so, why is Fleet, certainly, as the more youthful, the more future representative, more involved and aware of the presence of John and the past than any of them? Kane is catching on when he witnesses the dark bird, but he could have been halucinating, or thought he was. We will just have to wait and see what roles these less informed characters have to play as the book comes to its close.

http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SMN0307H-0-2383&artno=0000014119&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=&title=Rage%20in%20the%20Cage&res=Y&ren=Y&gov=Y&lnk=N&ic=Y

http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SMN0307H-0-2383&artno=0000282746&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=&title=Solitary%20Confinement%3A%20An%20American%20Invention&res=Y&ren=Y&gov=Y&lnk=N&ic=Y

http://solitaryconfinement.org/resources

ethics sites/cites

DeMartini, Alayna. "Long Terms in Solitary Can Warp Minds, Critics Say." Columbus Dispatch Sept 2007. SIRS Researcher. SIRS Knowledge Source. Edina High School. 7 Dec 2008 http://www.sirs.com.

Alayna DeMartini is a reporter for The Dispatch which is a respected newspaper. In the article, she quotes a director of Human Rights Watch: "For the mentally ill, it can be torture," Fellner said. "You cannot just be locked up with your own mind because it can be very scary and damaging." This suggests the idea that solitary confinement, at least at great length, is neither healthy, nor productive, as, she argues, it can make violent teens even more so. The other end of the arguement is brought up as well, quoting Brian Lane from the Marion County prison, "the confinement teaches youths to change their behavior. They seldom return to the unit." The general ideas the article leaves you with about solitary confinement are that it can be good to calm a person down for a few hours, but at great lengths, it is not good for the prisoner, or society when the person is returned to it, because of the estrangement and isolation and what it does to the human mind, especially when said mind already has emotional issues.

Laughlin, Meg. "Does Seperation Equal Suffereing?" St. Petersburg Times Dec 2006. SIRS Researcher. SIRS Knowledge Source. Edina High School. 7 Dec 2008 http://www.sirs.com.

Meg Laughlin is a reporter for the St. Petersburg Times. She brings up many good arguements towards solitary confinement being cruel, focusing on one prisoner, Ian Manuel, who was 14 when first imprisoned, and even after appologizing to the victim, and her forgiving him and wanting to help him get educated, was not allowed any rehabilitation, because of his solitary confinement. She brings up the fact that "cutting and watching the blood flow is how hundreds of inmates 'relieve the boredom and stress of isolation.' " This quote was from Don Gibs, a psychiatrist for the Department of Corrections, who also states that "It takes from two to six months for inmates in solitary to start exhibiting signs of mental illness, if they are not already mentally ill." So not only is it a cruel experience for the prisoners, the fact that they receive no rehabilitation and have a good chance of becoming mentally ill bodes poorly for society as a whole when they have served their time.

more on same book

I'm about halfway through Darkmans by Nicola Barker now. At this point I think it would be interesting to talk about the stylistic factors like methods of foreshadowing. A lot of plot twists are revealed either just to one character, or between a few but kept from the reader, which keeps you curious about how it will turn out in the end, and what the characters know that you don't. There isn't really anything the reader knows that the characters don't, except for the fact that the reader knows things about characters that the others might not.
One of the characters who seems most mysterious is Fleet. He behaves so strangely it makes you wonder if its just how he is, or if he is going to end up playing a bigger role in the overall story.
The summary on the back of the book says the main character is the past itself, and I'm wondering if this is supposed to be true, whether or not it is successfully portrayed. It is certainly alluded to on many occasions, but the present seems just as relevant. I love the comparison of medieval times to the current times, how everything then was symbolistic, just like many things in the consumerism realm of modern day society. While certain objects in paintings represented different religious things back then, now wearing certain clothes makes specific statements. Also, colors then stood for specific things, and they still do for us, even if they are less specific. Red means passion, which could be anger or love, and green jealousy, etc. Reading insightful things like this remind me what clever people authors really are. Everything that the characters in a book know, the author had to know as well. Its interesting to think about, and how the characters intelligence reflects that of the author. Using that theory, I would say Nicola Barker is rather intelligent.

Connections

I'm now on part three of Darkmans by Nicola Barker and I think it would be interesting to make some connections to the text.

For one thing, the fact that Kane is a prescription drug dealer connects to our society today, in the way that lots of people do prescription drugs instead of nonprescription drugs because they are more easily accessed and can give similar effects. I think it also says something about Kane, in the way that yes, he is a drug dealer, which would seem pretty hard core, except for that they're prescription drugs, which somehow makes him seem more pathetic. Either way it is a modern twist on your average drug dealer character, showing us how really anyone can be involved in the business.

A text to text or other media connection is Fleet. The troubled or special child seems to be a common theme in film and literature today. Many of the books I have read in the past year feature children similar to Fleet in this way, like Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer, and The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime by Mark Haddon. In horror films it is used as a creepy factor, a child who is smarter than they should be, or knows things they shouldn't. It seems to be a combination of these two in Darkmans, because Fleet is both troubled and strangely knowledgeable.

Darkmans part two

I finished chapters one through eight, which was part one of Darkmans by Nicola Barker. I think it would be good to sum up the characters that were introduced in this first section so as not to get confused, now that more characters are being introduced in part two, even though the style of writing makes it easy to get to know the characters. Just for future reference:

Beede is a mature adult who has an obsession with history and order and pride. He likes to manipulate words and sometimes people, but is, at least in Kane's mind, simple and not worth investigating for the most part.
Kane is Beede's son, a prescription drug dealer, who is not into emotions, and who enjoys living life in the shallow waters. He smokes cigarettes and marijuana and lives in the same building as his father, who always keeps his door unlocked as a fatherly act, even though, until now, Kane has never taken advantage of that.
Kelly is Kane's ex girlfriend who seems to still be involved somehow with Beede. Kelly's family is very well known for various things, like being rich and mischievous. She breaks her leg and Beede visits her in the hospital. Their relationship is something to watch.
Gaffar is a Turkish man who helps Kelly when she breaks her leg and gets in a fight with Kane, who thought he was harassing Kelly. He understands english but doesn't speak it very well, so fills in everything else with Turkish, so no one but Beede understands him.
Elen and Fleet. Elen is Fleet's mother, and Beede's chiropodist, which is some sort of foot doctor. They have a way more intense relationship than the average doctor/patient sort, which seems to be the case with Beede and whoever he encounters.
Isidore is Elen's husband and Fleet's father, and has some mental issues with periods of time where he forgets many things, like who he is, and does things he normally wouldn't. Beede acts as his caretaker sometimes, and Fleet seems to have learned or inherited some of these eccentricities from him, much to his parents displeasure.

So those were the main characters from part one. I'm pretty sure all of them are still going to be in the rest of the book, I just want to remember their specifics so when new ones are added it doesn't get confusing.

Chapter One

The book I am reading right now is Darkmans by Nicola Barker. I've just finished chapter one. I would like to examine a quote to learn more about Kane and a certain situation with a two men on one horse.

"Outside the horse was still vaguely audible as it moved around in the car park. While Beede continued to search through his bag, Kane strolled over to the window, pulled the curtain back and peered out. The horse was still visible, but way off to his left. It had come to a halt in the children's play area, where it stood, breathing heavily and defecating. The man was now struggling to climb off its back. But it was an entirely different man.
Kane blinked.
Entirely different. Tall. Nordic. Smartly dressed in some kind of uniform --

Imposter " (27).

It's strange enough that there was a random man bareback on a horse outside the restaurant window in the first place, but now the man has mysteriously disappeared and been replaced by a new, different, man. The first clue that the man was not the same was that he was struggling to get off the horse's back. The original had ridden the horse with grace and confidence, this one seems less comfortable on the creature's back. Next Kane realizes his obvious appearance is different as well and for some reason this greatly shocks and disturbs him. Why is he seeing this man on the horse in the first place, when no one else notices it and only the little boy seems to entertain the idea, or even listen to what he's saying about it? The little boy certainly does seem to know more than an average five year old would. Almost as if he is a part of this realm where the men on the horse are an every day sight, and Kane is just becoming able to experience it. Sort of like in Harry Potter when Harry can suddenly see the dragon horses that pull the chariots to Hogwarts, because he saw Cedric die. Which doesn't even make sense because he saw Sirius die, and if that doesn't count then Sirius isn't really dead. But the series is over. But this isn't the point. Back to Darkmans. I wonder if there is some mysterious aspects of life that Kane is suddenly becoming aware of. He says he feels differently, and he doesn't seem to be enjoying this change.
I think his comment of 'Imposter' is interesting. Imposter has connotative associations such as liar, fake, a bad thing, a cruel trick, being deceived, betrayed by something or someone you trusted. He feels so strongly about this horse and these men that this is the word that comes to mind when the second man is on the horse, the first absent. Would the second even be the imposter? Maybe the first was the imposter, and he doesn't realize it. Or maybe, like the boy suggests, there really were two horses, so neither is an imposter. Either way the whole scenario is rather curious and I hope more light is shed upon this, both for my sake, as well as Kane's.

The Rules Of Attraction: after reading.

Now that I've finished reading The Rules Of Attraction by Bret Easton Ellis I'd like to discuss the characters a bit more.

Sean seems to have never really acknowledged his secret relationship with Paul in the chapters that he narrates, which leaves me wondering if he just doesn't want to admit it ever happened, or if it's a figment of Paul's imagination. It's rather depressing that Sean was so in love with Lauren and thought she was the one writing love notes to him, even though in reality it wasn't and she never loved him, hardly ever liked him. I wish we got a bit more information on the spontaneous proposal to Lauren when she finds out she's pregnant. It's selfish of her to say that she's sure it's his, when the father could be any of four or so guys. And it's surprising that she accepted his proposal and seemed happy enough about it but still just as happy when they decide she should get an abortion.
I also think its really interesting how different characters see each other differently. The characters who are in love with someone describe that person as magnificent, beautiful, like they can do no wrong. But other characters will describe the same person as pretty but nothing special. It really makes you realize how much of our world is what we perceive it to be, and perfection is really different for everyone.
As for Lauren, I wish we could have gotten more emotion out of her. She goes through a lot in the book: missing her ex boyfriend who she was very much in love with, several boyfriends, switching majors several times, getting pregnant, getting proposed to, trying to make the relationship with her fiance work, getting an abortion, and finding out the only boy she ever really loved doesn't even remember the sound of her voice or think her at all a significant part of his life.
I wonder if the girl getting an abortion earlier in the book was foreshadowing or if it was just to show that she's not a special case, it happens fairly frequently.
I wonder who the girl who was actually writing the love notes to Sean was and if they could possibly have worked out.
And last but not least, Paul. He goes through just as much as Lauren, if not more. It's a rather awkward love triangle when Paul comes home to find Sean has left him for Paul's ex Lauren. I think one of the most touching moments in the book is Paul and Lauren's meeting in the end. It gives a sense of reality, that life must go on even when people have experienced and lost so much.
The title definitely fits the book well. The rules of attraction aren't a specific set of dos and don'ts, more the fine lines between falling in love and falling out of it, the little things that make people attractive to certain people but not to others, and just how fragile all of it really is.

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer

Since I enjoyed Everything Is Illuminated so much I decided to read Foer's other novel as well. This one is newer and takes place in America. The story is about a young boy living in New York in 2003 whose father died in the terrorist attacks on 9/11. He and his father always played little games with each other, and after his father is dead, Oskar, the boy, discovers a small key in an envelope that says "Black" on it in red pen. Assuming this is a clue to a new game, Oskar goes on a quest to discover what the key opens.

Some of the things that I really enjoy about Foer's writing are the unique, three dimensional characters who each tell their story with a different voice, and the variety of media he includes in his books. This one especially has many interesting things to break up the monotony of prose. There are pictures that Oskar is collecting throughout the novel, letters he receives from people he sent letters to, as well as various stylistic aspects of other characters.
I like how this book is mostly from the perspective of a young boy. Even though the character isn't one hundred percent believable, you can see his innocence and naivety through his reactions to events and experiences. He's constantly eager to learn more and meet new people.

I think that this novel is easier to understand than Everything Is Illuminated. Maybe it's because its from a younger point of view, or maybe its because Foer had more experience when he wrote this book so he knew how to make it clearer for the reader. Already I have way fewer questions about the plot than I did with the Everything Is Illuminated. We'll just have to see if this clarity continues till the end.

"Most Cab Drivers Have Liberal Arts Degrees" (39).

The book I'm reading now is The Rules Of Attraction by Bret Easton Ellis. I'm about a fourth of the way in and so far I can tell its about the lives of several liberal art students in the eighties and their various experiences, few of which involve any actual classes. I think that it would be good for me to discuss the characters because keeping track of them can be confusing at times, since each chapter or section is a different character's point of view. Here we go...

character's whose heads we get inside of:

Sean: sleeps with Deidre, drinks a lot, very interested in Candice

Paul: Lauren's ex, bisexual, still in love with Mitchell who has a thing with Candice now, Drama major, accidentally asks Sean out to dinner because he thought Sean was asking him, but doesn't make it to the date because Harry the freshman seems to have ODed and they have to take him to the hospital

Lauren: in love with her ex boyfriend Victor who's in Europe, constantly switching boyfriends, sleeps with Steve

Victor: has a crazy time in Europe

There's also parts written by a mysterious anonymous girl who is very much in love with Sean and sends him love notes constantly even though he probably doesn't know she exists.

All of these characters have different friend groups so it takes a while to get used to reading the constant change of characters, even though the events are mostly the same.

Finished the book...

Now that I've finished reading Everything Is Illuminated by Jonathan Safran Foer, I'm going to go back and check to see if my questions were answered, and continue to compare the movie and the book as far as the rest of the novel.

Does Augustine come before or after the much adored Brod, and what relation does she have to Brod and Yankel?
Augustine comes after Brod, and even though I'm still not really sure of Augustine's exact identity, assuming we mean Augustine as Alex thinks of her, Augustine wouldn't be directly related to Brod, but she rescued her grandson, or great grandson, from the Nazis.

Speaking of Yankel, what is this story about him swindling some man while his name was Safran?
We learn more about this in later chapters, although it never goes into detail about what he did, just tells you that he was sentenced and had to wear a bead to show his guilt.

And does the main character Jonathan Safran Foer and the author having the same name have any significance as far as the story? (Its fiction).
Not that was revealed, not that I can tell.

Why do people in Trachimbrod, or Sofiowka, behave so strangely?
This could either be simply an invention of the real Jonathan Safran Foer, or an invention of the Jonathan Safran Foer in the book who is writing this section, or it could just be how people acted back then.

Do they really record their recurrent dreams as it describes, even though they would seem, at least I imagine, such private and intimate dreams one wouldn't want to share with their whole village?
Apparently they do...

What makes Brod so special?
Mostly what makes Brod special is the strange circumstances that are her birth and adoption into Trachimbrod. She's also very beautiful, and this plus the mystery factor is I think what makes her so desirable and despiseable (to men and women respectively).

Who were her parents, why was she found the way she was, and what is up with the scene where she uses her telescope to look through a wall of a neighbor's house and read a recording of her apparent first rape, when there was no mention of her being raped before? What does this mean about her, about the book?
We still don't know who her parents were, nor why she was found the way she was, nor really what was happening in this scene, except if it was after the fact of her actual first rape, then it was just her reading the Trachimbrod book where they record everything that happens to everyone. In this case it doesn't really mean anything about her or the book.

Some new questions that were raised in the middle and end sections of the books are:

What is the reader to make of the relationship between Jonathan and Alex? Did they both discover their sexuality on this search, and have something of a fling, or did they just get so emotionally close it could be mistaken for such?
Who is Augustine? Is Lista the same Lista that Jonathan's grandfather slept with? What of the deceased mother and child who died in the Brod river? Why are so many women attracted to Jonathan's grandfather's dead arm? Does he only ever fall in love with his unborn child?

Basically I'm still confused about a lot of things after reading this. And even though I thoroughly enjoyed it, I'm just wondering if I'm simply not intelligent enough to understand or if I'm not making the right connections or wasn't paying enough attention or what's going on to make me remain confused.

And lastly, the book and movie ended up varying an awful lot, because the movie cut out a huge section of the book, everything in the past about Yankel and Brod and Trachimbrod and Jonathan's grandfather. They do hint at Alex's grandfather's past, but I'm pretty sure in the movie his grandfather was a Jew himself, not just his best friend. Also, in the movie the grandfather kills himself while they're still on their journey and Alex never kicks his father out of the house. So although they are mainly the same story and have much of the same dialogue, I'd still say they are very different works of art.

things that confuse me.

As I continue reading Everything Is Illuminated, there are things that continue to confuse me. For example, does Augustine come before or after the much adored Brod, and what relation does she have to Brod and Yankel? Speaking of Yankel, what is this story about him swindling some man while his name was Safran? And does the main character Jonathan Safran Foer and the author having the same name have any significance as far as the story? (Its fiction). Why do people in Trachimbrod, or Sofiowka, behave so strangely? Do they really record their recurrent dreams as it describes, even though they would seem, at least I imagine, such private and intimate dreams one wouldn't want to share with their whole village? What makes Brod so special? Who were her parents, why was she found the way she was, and what is up with the scene where she uses her telescope to look through a wall of a neighbor's house and read a recording of her apparent first rape, when there was no mention of her being raped before? What does this mean about her, about the book?
You'd think that having watched the movie would make these questions easier to answer, but no, I'm still confused. For one thing, the entire story of Brod and Yankel and the Slouchers and Trachimbrod at this time period was not included in the movie. I wonder why that would be, when it seems to be such a big part of the plot in the novel. Hopefully the answers to these questions will reveal themselves as the novel progresses. I will keep you updated.

On the aspect of the similarities between the book and the movie, I am happy to say that the humor is the same. They used precisely the same jokes in the movie as were in the book. I wonder, however, if I would have seen the humor in them as much if I hadn't already watched the movie.

comparing book to movie.

Everything Is Illuminated by Jonathan Safran Foer is a movie as well as a book. I saw the movie a while ago and decided the book might be just as good if not better, so decided to read it. As I'm reading I've noticed some things that are different about the book and movie, and some things that are almost exactly the same.

One thing I noticed right away that is the same is the character Alexander's vocabulary. I have to say this is one of my favorite parts of the book, it just makes reading the chapters that he narrates so enjoyable. He is from Ukraine so doesn't always understand how Americans speak English. Here's a sample of the way he talks:
"My legal name is Alexander Perchov. But all of my many friends dub me Alex, because that is a more flaccid-to-utter version of my legal name. Mother dubs me Alexi-stop-spleening-me!, because I am always spleening her. If you want to know why I am always spleening her, it is because I am always elsewhere with friends, and disseminating so much currency, and performing so many things that can spleen a mother" (1).
A lot of the phrases and words he uses in the book are the exact same as the movie, and the first intro chapter of the book is very close to the intro of the movie.

The first thing I noticed that was significantly different was the second chapter which I'm starting to gather is part of a novel the other main character, Jonathan Safran Foer, (yes, its the same as the author, the actual relation of this I'm still unsure), is writing about his very great grandmother. It's sort of a confusing format, switching each chapter unannounced to this novel or Alex talking about or to Jonathan. The flow of the movie was easier to understand, and in the movie, Jonathan was a collector, not a writer, even though Alex's father thought he was writing a novel.

The plot so far seems mostly the same except for the confusion about this novel Jonathan seems to be writing.

We'll just have to see if the similarities and differences continue as the book progresses.

Beyond Good and Evil: Nietzsche

"Discovering that his love is returned should actually disillusion a lover about his beloved. 'What's this? This person is unassuming enough to love even you? Or stupid enough? Or -- or --'" (63).

This quote depresses me and seems rather true all at the same time, a reaction I'm finding occurs quite often while reading this book. Its heart breaking to think that if its always true, then no one will ever really be in love with their love equally returned, unless of course both of the people are so self involved it doesn't apply to them. This quote wouldn't apply to someone self centered because they wouldn't be shocked to discover the person they loves loves them back, more they would almost expect it, take it for granted. So, if we are to believe this quote to be true, (not saying that I do, as I don't entirely, it just seems to make a certain sense), either you can never have a real relationship with someone you love and loves you back, or you're far too in love with yourself. Personally, neither of those sound very appealing.

"Ultimately, it is the desire, not the desired, that we love" (72).

I also find truth in this quote. It can apply to anything that we want or desire. Its the basic argument that you always want something until you actually have it. We are more in love with the wanting aspect of it, and that consumes most of our emotions, that the actual object or person doesn't particularly matter, more the fact that it is indeed desirable is what has any affect. The wanting and leading up to an event or something else is more exciting and stimulating than the thing itself, in may cases.

Welkommen

'ello and welcome to my semi-rad blog. :]

please attempt to enjoy yourself, and if you're not... leave?