The Ending of Ragtime

At the end of Ragtime, we get this conclusion of what happens to all the characters. We find out that Mother and Father divorce and that Mother gets married to Tateh. We discover the endings to Emma Goldman and Evelyn Nesbit. In the finale chapter, Doctorow doesn’t hold back, and just hits us with all these blunt statements of what happens to all the characters that we met throughout his book. Yet, the ending still seems almost unsatisfactory.

To be honest, I kind of disliked the ending. After having read so many fiction stories, I kind of almost expected like a fairy tale ending where there was either a cliffhanger ending that gives readers something to dwell on, or even an ending where everyone lived happily ever after. Instead, we get statements like “The anarchist Emma Goldman had been deported. The beautiful and passionate Evelyn Nesbit had lost her looks and fallen into obscurity” (Doctorow 320). Everything just seemed so bland like it doesn’t really matter what happens to the characters. In a way, that’s kind of true.

               

This is because Doctorow tries make the book seem realistic. He wants the ending to be representative of history. In real life, people don’t end up having these fantastical endings that everyone thinks they have. For example, after the American Revolution and presidency, George Washington didn’t go on some new adventure. Instead, retired to his plantation to live out the rest of his life. Nobody really cares about Washington in his post-presidency. Life just moves on. The same happens in Ragtime. Doctorow doesn’t end on a high note. Instead, he makes the book seem realistic by making the characters almost ordinary in their endings. It gives the illusion that the book itself isn’t really a work of fiction, but rather a series of chapters in someone’s life. 

The Representation of Class Division Through Houdini

In the book “Ragtime” E.L. Doctorow introduces Houdini as one of the characters. Instead of just portraying him as a mere historical character, Doctorow uses him to demonstrate class conflict. He gives Houdini a purpose other than entertaining crowds with his wild escapes. By writing the encounters that Houdini has with the upper class, Doctorow creates the analogy in which Houdini represents the lower class who can never fit in with the aristocrats, no matter how much money or fame they acquire.

As a real person, Harry Houdini came from very humble beginnings. He was originally born as Erich Weiss, in Budapest, and moved to the United States when he was four years old. Before he has become famous, Houdini he worked at a small circus. At the time, performers were not highly regarded, even if they were highly entertaining. It was only later in his life, when he began doing his escapes, that he become incredibly famous and wealthy. However, despite all of his success, Houdini never really became part of America’s aristocratic class.

This rejection from the aristocracy is incredibly apparent in Houdini’s interactions at Mrs. Stuyvesant Fish’s party. At the very beginning when Houdini arrives, he wasn’t even allowed to walk through the front door. Instead, “the entourage was shown to the trade entrance” (Doctorow 32). This is almost exactly like Coalhouse Walker’s interaction with the family. Instead of going through the front door like most people, he has to go through the back door. It’s like Houdini is forced to remember his humble background. Just like Walker, Houdini still has to abide by these class rules, even though both of them are incredibly successful. It’s like even though they have come so far, no matter what they do, they can never fit in with America’s elite. To add even more disrespect, Mrs. Fish shoves Houdini aside almost like a second-rate act by hiring the Barnum and Bailey. Personally, I think that if you hire top-level entertainment, you should stick with it. You shouldn’t be buying out a ton of them like they’re going out of fashion. By introducing all the freaks, Doctorow has sent a message about societal cliques. You have the super-rich and aristocratic class, and then you have everyone else. At the end of the day, Houdini only interacts with the circus freaks, even though he was paid to entertain the party. “When he felt he had discharged his responsibilities, Houdini rose and told his manage he would not perform for Mrs. Stuyvesant Fish” (Doctorow 34). This shows us that even though Houdini was a world-class act, he will never fit in with the aristocracy. He can only fit and perform for the freaks and lower class. This shows us that there was this huge canyon between the elite and everyone else, and that no one could ever cross it.

I think that Doctorow was trying to send the readers a message. This message was to critique the upper class. He makes them seem so petty and arrogant with his scene with Houdini. He tries to tell us that at the time, there was this huge social divide, and that the people at the top were just flat-out bigots who could never accept that someone who wasn’t born with a silver spoon in their mouth could ever become like them. 

A Review of Room

Room by Emma Donoghue is an excellent book. It keeps readers captivated all throughout the story about what will happen to our main characters, and establishes an emotional link between the reader and the characters. It also offers an insightful look into reality. Often times, we hear stories about how someone get rescued from a kidnapping and Room does an excellent job of putting us in the place of the victim. You find that you want to keep reading and reading until you are finished. 

Throughout the book, I found that I had a hard time staying in the boundaries of our reading assignments. I often felt like I wanted to keep reading on ahead. Everytime I read this book, Donoghue kept on leading me on. I wanted to know what happened to our main characters, Jack and Ma. I think a perfect example of this is the escape from the shed. I found it really difficult to stop halfway into the escape section. After Ma and Jack's plan A failed, I wanted to know if they came up with a plan b. Room is just filled with cliffhangers and really just drags you into it. On top of that, it also offers a really interesting perspective of a kidnapping victim.

For me personally, I found the dynamic of Jack and Ma really interesting. Since I have never really experienced growing up/living in a kidnapping situation, I really didn't have an idea of what to expect. I found the concept of raising a kid in extraordinary circumstances was really interesting as well as very tragic. Even though Ma was stuck in Room, she still did an excellent job of raising Jack. I also felt that adapting to society after being stuck in Room for years was also a really interesting scenario. Often times, in kidnapping stories, you hear a lot about how it happened and the escape, but not about the victim returning to society. Room talks a lot about the return to society, and this really is an interesting look that hooks audiences. 

Overall, I felt that this was a 5 out of 5 stars. It is through the combination of writing a unique perspective from the victim and writing about extraordinary circumstances as well as the constant suspense that makes this book my favorite of 2016.     

Shading and Colors in the Persepolis Film

The Film Persepolis was a really nice animated film. It was captivating and really entertaining. What I really liked about the film though, was the coloring and shading of different scenes.

Persepolis first starts out as a color film. In the beginning, Marji is seen in an airport full of color. However, soon after, as she begins to reflect on her childhood, the film suddenly turns to black and white. This has two effects on the movie. It first lets us know that the film is like a flashback. Often times in animation, we see scenes turn black and white to reflect something that happened in the past. In the animation, It really gives Marji a chance to narrate, as she reflects within her flashback of the past. If it was like a standard animation film, we wouldn't really be able to hear her thoughts. Often times, in regular films, if a character suddenly get a thought, we won't know it until they say it out loud to someone else. However, in Persepolis, by basing much of the film as a reflection (by having color scenes in the beginning and middle before turning to black and white), the directors give an excuse to have Marji say her thoughts out loud without having to talk to another character. This keeps the film really true to the book in that we can know the thoughts of both Marji in the book, and Marji in the film.

I also really like the shading in the film. It really emphasizes the mood of Marji and the events occurring within the film. When Marji was really happy and life was good, the scenes tended to be brighter. For example, in the film, when Marji reunited with her family, the whole film became really white and bright, symbolizing her happiness. However, in Vienna, when she slept on the streets, the whole film became dark. All of the people and scenes became almost pitch black, symbolizing her depression. This can be compared to explosions in movies. Often times, in a modern film, when the director wants to show thrilling scenes, he/she will put in explosions. The reflects the mood of the movie by showing that the characters are pumped up and ready for battle. Just like in the color Persepolis, explosions symbolize how the characters are feeling. It shows them being hyped up. However, in Persepolis, rather that having lots of explosions like in Michael Bay films, they prefer to use more color to show thrilling moods.

Overall, I really loved the film. It is the combination of shading and color that really makes this film one of the most visually pleasing animation films that I have ever seen.

The Effect of Faces in Persepolis

Often times, when we read books, we rely on the text to tell us what each character is experiencing. A lot of times, we have to infer what our character is feeling through their thoughts and actions as well as the thought and actions of others. Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi is a different kind of book. Rather than having a lot of text, its main emphasis is the usage of pictures. Because of this, we must look at the pictures to get a better understanding of what happens in the book. In particular, we must pay attention to the faces of the people in the book to understand what really occurs in Persepolis.

In the book, there are many different kinds of faces. Some of the more common ones are the faces that are smiling as well as some that look really sad. These faces really let us know what the main character, Marji, is feeling, as well as telling us the influences others had on her. For example, on page 69, in the scene where Marji meets her uncle Anoosh in prison, it is their facial expressions that really tell us what they feel. Just looking at the tears rolling down Marji’s face is enough to tell us just how sad she really is. The same applies to Anoosh as well. You can tell by the grim yet semi smiling face that he is really sad about leaving Marji, yet he is still trying to be strong for her sake. The words on the page don’t really emphasize these emotions, it is the touching images that do. Those images make us feel much more empathy for the characters since we can visualize their expressions.

All in all, I really like the style the book is created in. I think that writing this book like a graphic novel was an excellent idea. It really drives in the emotions the characters were feeling. There is a saying that a picture is worth a thousand words. I think that saying is very appropriate to use here. No amount of text would be able to paint the emotions we see from the faces in Persepolis.

Unfair Trial, or Just Jury?

From a reader’s point of view, we think that Jefferson is innocent. The reason is that the book leans us towards his side. We mostly get Jefferson's side of the story and we know that the all-white jury is likely stacked against him. This makes us empathize with Jefferson due to the unfairness of it all. However, we shouldn’t just so quickly write off the verdict as unfair. We should also look at the evidence from the jury’s point of view.

The evidence of the incident at the store is pretty clear cut since no one tries to refute it. You have two people, Brother and Bear who start causing trouble. They are both trying to buy alcohol, except neither of them have enough money. Bear, who is clearly drunk, starts to act against the warnings that the store owner, Mr. Grope, has given him. Of course, a confrontation, and then a shootout begins and by the end of it, only Jefferson is alive at the store. Then, Jefferson “snatched a bottle off the shelf, wrung off the cap, and turned up the bottle, all in one continuous motion” and took money from the cash register. These actions sort of make him seem shady. Also, there were two witness who saw Jefferson. They saw him with “the money stuffed inside his jacket pocket, the half bottle of whiskey clutched in his hand…” This gives the prosecution and idea for what happened inside.

If I was the jury, I probably would think Jefferson robbed the store. You have three dead men in the store and another man drinking whiskey and with money in his pocket. You also have two men who claimed they saw the same man drinking with money in their pocket from the register inside. For me, if the defense didn’t deny this evidence, what happened inside the store would be pretty clear cut to me. I would think that someone just robbed a store and was drinking in celebration. I wouldn’t think that Jefferson’s story about how he acted dumb and was in the wrong place at the wrong time was true. I would think that he committed murder of the first degree. This shows us that when we are approaching A Lesson Before Dying, we should do it with an open mind, so that we get both perspectives rather than just one. 

Split Screen Movies

I think that using the split screen effect on the film of As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner was a really great idea. It really shows the confusing narrative of the book and shows how the overall story was told by multiple narrators.

As I Lay Dying is a really confusing book. The overarching plot isn't really straightforward. You have to infer a lot of things by reading from the perspective of multiple characters. This makes it really difficult to make a movie on the book. Since there are so many narrators, you can't really make a single view film and hope to capture all of the narration from each character. Instead, I think that James Franco did a really nice job with how he developed the film. Rather than a typical single view movie, he created a split screen movie. This allows us to get different perspectives and reactions to the events that happen in the book. For example, it allows us to get different views towards Addie on her deathbed. The split screen view allows us to see though different character's eyes as events play out, just like how we can see through the eyes of the characters in the book.

My only issue with the split screen view is that sometimes it can be a little hard to follow. Since I read the book, I can use my previous knowledge and apply that to watching the movie. I can follow the different scenes as they play out. However, to an ordinary person who hasn't read As I Lay Dying, the split screen view will be really confusing. This is because there are different scenes and timelines happening from both screens. One screen will feature a character doing something while another screen will have a different character doing something else at a different time. This makes things really confusing since we are used to have a single overall view during most movies.

Overall, I still thought that the split screen view of the movie was really nice. Even though it does make things a little confusing, I still think that it captures the style that As I Lay Dying was written in.