The only connection I could discern was the use of fluid perspectives. The point-of-view shifts a lot of times in Beloved, and Shanghai Triad showed us a visual representation of that through its cinematography. Other than that, literally nothing. I would just sign it off as supplemental culture.

Thank you. I thought the exact same thing. I do not think that Sethe's struggle had much to say about gender equality. I mean, they were probably a little too preoccupied by the oppression of slavery and race to feel significant effects of gender oppression. Yes, Beloved deals with a majority of female characters, but that does not equal feminism. The only way I see it as feminist is that it presents these characters pretty much without making a deal out of their gender. Maybe it could be called gender-blind?

I feel like in Beloved, Morrison reveals her story and characters in a way that is simultaneously blunt and mystifying. She describes blunt instances, but you never understand their full meaning until later. And some scenes are shocking, but the complete opposite of blunt. I can only think of about two things so far in the book that were very blunt. But by being indirect, the message hits you harder when you finally realize it.

I also think the recurrence of sweetness connects to Beloved in particular. It's still too early to tell, but I think it may have something to do with Beloved's partial identity as a baby. The sweetness of infancy contrasts with the older, spiteful version that chokes and threatens.

I agree, the connections between the two are most likely loose- thematic rather than plot-based. I think, though, that the violence in the film is necessary, from both the character's and the director's point of view. Not only does it advance the plot, but it helps illustrate whatever point the director and writer are trying to make. As for Blake, he is a strange man in a new world, and something had to radically change for him. That something was becoming a murderer.

Nice post! This is an intriguing point, because Achebe essentially strengthened Conrad's message in the book while trying to destroy it.

Exactly. The center of darkness is the human heart, if taken literally. The center of darkness is the center of humans, so logically it follows that humans represent all darkness. At least the darkness Conrad wished to portray in this novel.

I think the names were withheld because Conrad wanted to dehumanize everyone surrounding Kurtz and Marlow in order to leave the narrative open to only an evaluation of the humanity of those two individuals.

First off, I'm making up a best title award and giving it to you. Second, I'm not sure how not wanting to take responsibilities and make decisions makes anyone a 'consummate citizen', especially an American one. Aren't the ideals of this country rooted in a strong sense of independence and ability to think for oneself? The consummate citizen would join the military in order to fight for freedom or at least for one's country. However, his ambivalent mindset, while not that of an ideal citizen, is that of the actual citizen. Laziness of thought and indecision are the most prevalent states of mind, and have become the new definition of the masses. Finally, Grimm could represent both society's demands and nature's laws if society's demands were constructed around nature's laws. In other words, Grimm is the embodiment of a society born of death, and death itself.

Faulkner finds it necessary to develop characters and human relationships more fully. The story itself is not extremely complex, but the way it is presented makes it that way, just as people don't seem all that complex, until you get into who they really are. It is very confusing, but at the same time it has a logical omniscient stream-of- consciousness feel to it.

I think the narration's fixation on Lena's bare feet represents her innocent, child-like nature, since it is children who often go barefoot. It expands Lena's character, because she presents both innocence and lechery. Because of this conflict in her character, Armistid is probably taken aback by Lena's failure to fit into one of his categories, and thus reluctant to touch her (along with the other reasons).

I was going to do a post on Hightower's name. He certainly does stick out. I thought it could also be interpreted as more of a high pedestal, suggesting that Hightower is morally above others. I think more likely, though, it is indicative of Hightower's high view of himself. His stubborn refusal to leave the town was a result of his belief that he was not wrong enough to be thrown out. He thinks he is better than that.

Yes! another poetry lover. I think the classroom discussion of poetry inadvertently proved your point. Poetry was never really defined, and it can never be defined. Poetry, like poems, does not have a concrete definition.

This happened to me too. I feel the subjects used in Spoken Word are used so much that the whole poems themselves become cliched to us. The only way I am going to enjoy a cliche is if it is written extremely spectacularly well. Half of a poem's merit to me is the idea behind it, and it is time that we thought of some new ones.

You cannot gain innocence. Once it is lost, it is lost forever. Foil does not necessarily mean complete opposites; it means complementary contrast. Think Meursault and the robot woman. They were not complete opposites. Both followed a routine. But they contrasted in that Meursault's routine had no purpose while the woman's routine had very strict purpose. The truth revealed by Billy's and Claggart's complementary contrast is that natural evil is eerily similar to natural good.

I completely agree. This relation to Christianity was established as early as the beginning of the book. When Billy is impressed, he is asked his parentage to which he replies, "God knows sir" (51). This establishes the connection with Billy and Jesus, as well as the many references to crucifixion later: "bringing to his face an expression which was as a crucifixion to behold." (99) Melville wrote Billy Budd, I believe, to expose the irony of Christianity and religion's constant battle against nature.

I think the outcome of the debate (was it 50.5% to 49.5%?) reflects this confusion. On their own, everyone presented good arguments, and received about equal points for that, as well as each side as a whole (though the con side deviated a bit at the end). But the debate itself as a whole was incoherent. I think the debate was so close because no one could tell who should win. And that's because, as Jeffrey said, no one could have.