Things We Noticed (5/3/11)

Things we noticed and questioned-

• Why do they keep living?
• What is their goal?
• Connecting mother to darkness.
• Symbolism of mother?
• Why do people revert to violence?
• How fast things collapse – implications? (States, society)
• What happened; how did some survive?
• People still talk to each other like humans despite inhuman instincts
• Man’s one-liners
• Lack of communication with boy
• Trying not to be emotional but can’t help nostalgia
• Emotion – they flee from it, but it keeps them together 
• Role of emotion and balance
• Dreams, nightmares
• Connections to Into the Wild 
• Why is the boy so scared of the house?
• Home
• Why does the boy want to die?
• How does he know?
• Male relationships vs. Female relationships
• Darkness is scary.
• Lamps and light vs. fire and ash
• Water as good and bad
• Memory
• The boy has no good memories
• Humanity has ended
• God

The Effects of Apocalypse on Society: A Rant

   The Effects of Apocalypse on Society: A Rant


In The Road, we see a recurring fear of other humans in a post-apocalyptic setting - and it is justified; one can never tell what a human is going to do.

Unlike the rest of the Animal Kingdom, humanity is unique in that we each have our own opinions and beliefs considering the perfect societal system. Wolves travel in packs, whales travel in pods; ants form colonies and feral cats go at the world on their own. Humans, however, divide ourselves. Rather than have different beliefs or behavior based on our race, we form our own ideas regarding how people should be - contrasting ideas concerning big government versus anarchy, capitalism and socialism are completely unique to each human, despite where they live.

We are a species which wages war with each other, we kill over greed, we mourn people we have never met when they pass away. Humans are the most interesting and diverse of all observable mammals, and the least trustworthy.

In times of destruction and mayhem, animals tend to work closer together than before - packs of wolves become inseparable, ant colonies swarm and regroup in new plots of land.

Humans, however, are different. What nature would see as a time during which you must band together to save yourselves humans see as a time of devastation when nobody can trust another. Two humans fight each other - a civil war breaks out. No ceasefire really stops the murderous urges. In the Animal Kingdom, it tends to work out that the two involved parties either avoid contact, fight to the death, and if not, they cease fighting when the battle is won.

We are not perfect - society is flawed: humankind is flawed with it.

If or when apocalypse hits, it is almost certain what will happen - any animals surviving will group up and become ferocious scavengers; humans will immediately get their hands onto any ammunition and food that they can.

They will fight to the death over food. They will fight each other to get more food.

If they must, they will resort to eating each other.

We must think of what exactly the human race has created for itself - we live in a society that has words, perceived emotions. Putting words into a certain order can feed someone unable to fend for himself in the wild. Humans take the fitter and more active of their species and put them into jails for "violence" (this is natural for every other species in the world, apparently; but not humans). They impose a "justice" system based on their own morality and faith in gods whose existences are unproven.

Compared to animals, we always think of ourselves as creative, cultured. Civilized. Somehow better than other mammals.

But we're not.

There was a concept that was once quite popular - natural selection. The fittest of the race breed and fight; they can get their own food. They will survive. Those with skewed genes will not survive - they are the weak, the sickly gazelles. They will be eaten or destroyed, unable to find food. Our protection of society - green paper, overabundance in food for some people over others, indulgence in certain flavor patterns - has made us weaker as a species. We solve everything in law - again, made up by man to protect the weak but skilled with words.

Words destroy us.

Words have made humanity into something that restrains nature and allows  many to live in starvation while others do nothing and eat themselves large.

In a world where nothing matters... nothing matters.

Words don't matter.

Laws don't matter.

Nature comes back into play.

Humans disregard something very important when it comes to emotions - they are also fabricated. Emotions are nothing more than chemicals flowing into your brain, causing certain senses and instincts to trigger. We are not meant to "love". Companionship is what we truly search for; any who find themselves "blinded by love" are interested in attractiveness or being pampered - this is lust. What those who are in the happiest relationships (also man-made) really have is companionship and trust. Their most base instincts to protect and care for each other; to soothe pain (chemicals, again) and be a source of comfort.

When people are truly "in love", they are nothing more than companions. Inseparable companions, but only companions. They are mated. They will not give up that bond for anything but death.

Imagine if humankind gave up all of its perceived importance. Its languages and poetry, its "higher learning" and anti-bullying campaigns. Imagine if we all could roam naturally - foraging, hunting on our own. No more steroid-pumped animals.

We would lose society, but what would we get back in return?

A world without hate - hate is man-made, there is no hatred in nature; merely perseverance and predatory instinct. No love or possessiveness - an open community working to provide for themselves, all men and women equal; children growing up learning things vital to survival.

But what do we have instead? We have built a society rewarding those who can obtain the most green paper and silver discs, we put the greedy and selfish on our highest pedestals and worship them, giving them power over us. Those who seek and demand a more natural and coexistent lifestyle are trampled on by the demanding and powerful.

There is no true power. There are weapons, yes, but those in charge of them are not truly in possession of them. There are charities, but they often don't fully serve their purposes of helping the needy.

 I'm not insane, though. Really.

Although it would conceptually be preferable, anarchy would not work with this generation.

We are too steeped in our morals - our false prophets, our conceptions of "beauty" over practicality and full of hatred over natural shapes. We spend time reflecting over meaningless quotes and poetic dribble when, in reality, they do nothing for us. What use are words? What use is green paper? What are silver coins when forests are burning to the ground and seas drying up?

Absolutely nothing.


See, we have built ourselves a society on falsehoods - false representation, false "currency", false equality. What is the truth in a world built on lies?


The current generations are lawsuit-happy: they have become content and lazy with their fast food and "laws" and prophets. We can't have things in halves, though: we must have all of society or none of it. We must embrace this superficial and useless hierarchy made of ideas if we are to have emotions and read, to "feel" and "love".

If we are to become true anarchists, we must leave that all behind. Humans are not trustworthy, and they do not trust easily.

No words. No false "emotions". We would not hate, but we would not work together, either.

So why do I say all of this?

In a post-apocalyptic scenario, there are really three types of people.

1. Those who realize the hopelessness of the situation and in some way stop their own pulse,
2. Those who are idealists and believe that banding together will somehow help, and
3. Those who represent human nature in its truest form - they take whatever rations they can find and will even kill other survivors to provide sustenance for themselves.

We're only human, and humans are only animals with mutated brains which perceive useless knowledge to be useful.

In apocalyptic society, we can do very few things with ourselves. We can become animals; preying on each other to survive. We can cling to our societal values and to each other, hoping that something happens to save us all while scavenging for what little food there is.

Let's be honest - who will come out alive in these circumstances?

Will it matter if they've all devolved to cannibalism? Will they still be human, then?

What does it really matter, though?

These are just words, invented by humans for humans to communicate.

The fact that I can communicate this message to you means that humanity is doomed. Anarchy cannot succeed. Society will crumble and so will the human race.

A glorified system is always what falls the hardest and fastest - and the social structure of today is so glorified that it is simply accepted and rarely questioned.

When we fall, we will fall hard.

We will fall fast.

As for me, I'll be one of the first people eating other people; so stay away from blonds with glasses.

The Road - Entry 1

Journal Entry 1 – The Road 

Cormac McCarthy 

  From the very style of the writing, from the short paragraphs and choppy sentences lacking punctuation, the readers feel a permeating sense of hopelessness – why punctuate when all hope is lost? The surroundings described are ashen – sparse, barren. Lifeless. The only glimpse we have into this desolate place is through our unnamed main characters: a father and his son. We see many instances of the father’s strong paternal instincts, though he also seems to displays maternal instincts – perhaps as a side effect from the loss of his wife. It is not prevalent, but it makes me wonder about his mental state (this interest is also piqued by the recurring dreams that are mentioned – dreams of a translucent, grey, cave-dwelling creature).

"[...]they stood in a great stone room where lay a black and ancient lake. And on the far shore a creature that raised its dripping mouth from the rimstone pool and stared into the light with eyes dead white and sightless as the eggs of spiders. It swung its head low over the water as if to take the scent of what it could not see. Crouching there pale and naked and translucent, its alabaster bones cast up in shadow on the rocks behind it. Its bowels, its beating heart. The brain that pulsed in a dull glass bell. It swung its head from side to side and then gave out a low moan and turned and lurched away and loped soundlessly into the dark." (3-4)

In the aftershock of a completely obliterated world, I would not expect many to keep a grasp on reality, but the father interests me in that he exhibits rationality and irrationality (perhaps furthered by nostalgia) along with his coexisting paternal and maternal instincts. For example, at the gas station, he attempts to call his own father, which is irrational – his father is likely dead. However, upon leaving, he quickly returns to collect motor oil for their lamp – a rational action following soon after an irrational thought. His behaviour brings to mind, for some reason, the ability of some animals in nature (in a homogenous male or female environment) to spontaneously change sex in order to preserve the species – or in this case, to care protect his existing lineage. In this case, his strong paternal feelings and his need to constantly guard his son (no matter how justified) are distinctly masculine, whereas his somewhat delusional nostalgic actions and his agreement to read the child a story despite the highly dangerous environment that they live in is distinctly (if less so than the previous example) feminine. Although I’m sure that this early into the novel I will be unable to come to a conclusion concerning his nature, it intrigues me and I will definitely focus on conflicting feelings of maternity and paternity.

The child, in contrast, is an intriguing character as well solely because of his behavior. Though his silence and practicality is a common result of great tragedy (loss of his mother, obvious global [continental?] catastrophe), his still somewhat childish nature interests me. Though thrown into a situation where he must live in constant paranoia considering other humans, must wear a face mask constantly and has a somewhat detached father, he still finds curiosity in simple things such as binoculars and joy in simple things (reading as story by lamplight). I wondered briefly and therefore wish to expand on the passing idea that perhaps the child’s behavior is directly influenced by his father’s – or at least is meant to influence his father. Because of the man’s serious nature, the hopelessness of the situation and his questionable mental state, perhaps the child purposefully maintains traits from his stolen childhood to keep his father grounded to reality – snapping him out of a daze in the gas station and asking for the aforementioned stories by lamplight despite the danger associated with being visible when the sun goes down. 

I have a feeling that without the child there to distract him, the man would likely be dead by now – his parental instincts to care for this child seem to be prominent in all thoughts grounded in present reality, and without the child’s well-being to distract him from the state of the world, I feel that the man would have wasted away with his grief. Essentially, the child is his anchor in reality: and I feel that the child may purposefully be behaving the way he does specifically in order to ground his father to the present time. 

I wonder if a sense of paternal duty can be more prominent in a human than his sense of self-preservation. I hope to discover this as I continue reading. 

 

Returning to the aforementioned dreams of a translucent cave-dwelling beast, the man mentions that in his dreams, the child leads him by the hand through the tunnel until they come upon the creature. It occurred to me for a short moment that this could be a metaphor for his usually suppressed emotions of fear (and it also cements my curiosity about the child being the father’s only link to reality). The child leading him through the tunnel symbolizes the supporting personality and his desire to follow along with the needs of his son and support him – the tunnel is “the road” (dark, dangerous, unknown). The creature is their destination – indistinguishable and unknown. Skittish. They may reach their destination to realize that it is not what they imagined or that they may not get to their destination – perhaps they will, in fact, find that they are farther away than they think. Perhaps the creature will attack them. This dream, I believe, represents these things – the fear of the man and the devotion to his son, the ambiguity and danger of their journey, the insecurity concerning what they will ultimately find. If not, then I predict that it is, at the very least, metaphorical foreshadowing.

Key and Forewarning

As of right now, I am simply bolding, italicizing and underlining certain things based off of what feeling I get from that certain part of my analysis, but it seems that the key - at the present time - will look something like this:

• Bold is a common symbol, theme or emotion that pops up;  
• Italics is a prediction or a note for the future on things to pay attention to,
• Underline is likely going to represent a symbol or metaphor that appears to be important to me.

 This blog was sort of made on the spot, but it seemed a good place to keep my short, personal essays and journal entries, so I'll keep it around. Who knows, maybe it will end up helping me with future English assignments?

As a warning for the future - I tend to take notice of specific psychological elements in characters and attempt to expand on them and their possible causes in depth. I also observe both human nature and society when possible and tend to elaborate on its intricacies and weaknesses.

Here's to attempting to update something productive on a regular basis.