Vampires Then and Now

Let the Right One In

            This is one vampire movie that I can sincerely say I enjoyed. It is perhaps because I am a sadist when it comes to entertainment. I love gore and hardships in storytelling and this movie brought both in full force. It is unlike any of the vampire movies nowadays. Now vampires are seeking love and companionship with refusal to succumb to their killer instincts. They are boring.

            Vampires are supposed to be these monsters designed to kill and feed off of human blood and burn in the sunlight, all of which was included in this movie. It stayed true to what vampires were initially created to be. However, with movies like Twilight and shows like the Vampire Dairies (though I can say that the Vampire Dairies really isn't that bad of a show) completely disregarded the classical nature of what a vampire was created to be. In Twilight the vampires feed from animal blood and sparkle in the sunlight. It is okay to be different and innovative, but sparkling? Really? It’s ridiculous.  The Vampire Dairies in comparison (now in the series) drink human blood, but before they also drank animal blood and because of a ring on their finger they are impervious to sunlight. That isn’t completely absurd, because without the ring they could die, but death by sparkle is quite impossible I think.

            I liked this movie because it stayed true to the design and initial intent of what a vampire is and was created to be, a monster. Though there was romance, sort of…more like puppy love, or bat love. It was whatever a vampire/human love interest is called. It wasn't a subject that was exemplified throughout the story so I was able to look passed it for the most part though. It offered human feeding, death by sunlight, and gore, where Eli viciously rips people to pieces and breaks necks. It was definitely an enjoyable experience in my life to relive the better times of vampire movies.

The Jungle Book: Man vs. Wild vs. A Wild Man

            I really enjoyed reading this piece. I believe in every essence of the story it represents a similar definition of how I define the wild; raw, untamed freedom. The boy had been raised by a pack of wolves. How much more wild can one get? I don’t know.

            The perfect example of an untamable wild is when the boy first approaches other people and one of the women of the village takes him in because she thought that he was her long lost child who had been taken by animals in the past. She tried to keep him in her hut, but he was too familiar with the outside world to be restrained to the confinements of small hut. However, Mowgli did eventually try to overcome his innate instincts with his desire to conform to the society of man. I didn’t like it.

            By the concluding paragraph I did find satisfaction when Mowgli realized that he is no longer a brother to this wolf pack, and never can he become a part of the man-pack. So he set out on his own to find his own pack accompanied by four other wolfs as he learned to embrace and accept his own genuine individualism and not common deceptive artificial individualism one assess through conformity.  I liked this piece, a lot!

The Road: Wild Cannibals

            This excerpt was interesting. I can’t exactly say I understand everything about it (but perhaps that is because it only seemed like an excerpt and not an entire story so I don’t know the entire background). However, in certain places within the piece I can definitely clearly indicate the connections between the world this father and son live in to that of someone’s interpretation of the wild. There was one part in particular that stood out to me, which is when it said that someday the fathers would eat their children right in front of you. That was a complete shock to me. The statement itself is not only wild and nefarious, but this cannibalism immediately reminded me of the prey and predator. The animalistic act of cannibalism is without a doubt a very untamable sense of the theme “the wild.” I enjoyed reading it a lot.  

Big Two-Hearted River: Fire vs. Water

Within Hemingway’s short story, “Big Two-Hearted River,” he is narrating a man who, I suppose, lived in a town called Seney. The story is broken into two parts which I distinguished to have polar opposite meanings and effects on the reader. In part one, in the very first paragraph, Hemingway is describing Seney as being burned to the ground and left in ashes. Everything was ruined. However, by part two, the entire element changed, and instead of fire he surrounds the reader in its total opposite, water, as he narrate Nick fishing throughout majority of the second part of the story.

            I like the contrast of elements. It immediately reminded me of the archetype desert versus water. Desert, which represents lack of life and desolation and depicts the ruins of the town and the burned-over stretch of hillside presented in the first part of Hemingway’s short story. While, in contrast, water represents life and birth, which depicts the river full of trout in the second part of story. However, the questions still remain, why was the land scorched in the first place and what exactly was the meaning of fire and water here? I don’t know. Honestly, I don’t even know what Hemingway’s point in writing this was. Maybe he just felt like it, or perhaps there was a purpose to it but I just missed it or something. I don’t know, but I do like the comparison he made with the archetypes here though.

            

Seeing: A Look at the Superficial and at Simplicity

In Dillard’s personal narrative, “Seeing”, he lionizes that and of itself, the ability to see. Dillard says this metaphorically of course, and metaphorically he seems to imply that we should all try and see the superficial surface of the world. Take life for what it is. Attempt to see a perspective that is profound too I guess and try and just see what is just…there. By “there” I mean, not everything needs to be philosophical and deep, try and notice when is though, but don’t try so hard that you miss the things that are staring you right in the face.

            There was one quote in particular that I liked that Dillard had said, which is on page 15where it runs, “But if you cultivate a healthy poverty and simplicity, so that finding a penny will literally make your day, then, since the world is in fact planted in pennies, you have with your poverty bought a lifetime of days. It is that simple.” What I took from this is that, if you teach yourself to enjoy the simpler things that life has to offer and not compile your life to revolve around having what is unnecessary, like, Gucci shoes, and videogames, cars, you know, the cliché materialistic things. If we can escape this and actually see what is there in front of us, and appreciate it, then what is there to not make us happy?

            It is probably easier said than done. To try and see something that you aren’t familiar with trying to see is difficult. Dillard even says himself, “I just can’t see the artificial obvious that those in the know construct,” which I interpret to mean that, those who don’t know how to look at something small in a way that it makes their day, just don’t know how and can’t make it happen. However, “if you can cultivate a healthy poverty—” learn to live without stuff— “and simplicity,” then I think you’ll be one step closer, at the very least anyways. Am I certain? No. Not really…not at all actually. It might just fly over your head, and that’s okay. Seeing is not meant for everyone I suppose. 

Saunter Into Fantasy: A Response to Thoreau's "Walking"

Saunter into Fantasy

            In Henry Thoreau’s ebook, Walking, where he describes the sensation of sauntering. Sauntering, Thoreau describes as one being able to a “Holy Land.” It is where the mind and body goes when one simply walks through the wilderness, where one can escape the inauthenticity of manmade crap. It is, seemingly, a divine transcendence from the synthetics of societal constructions.

            I cannot exactly say that I enjoyed reading the passage. It was a bit…irritating. His writing was, I mean, and his repetitious reference to the Holy Land. He said something along the lines of, only true saunterers can reach the Holy Land. What the hell is the Holy Land though? Is it some kind of fantasy world where dreams are like rainbows that shoot out of your ass? What is it? Okay yeah, I understand that walking and appreciating the beauty of nature before industrialism, or where industrialism has not hit, yet, is perhaps a wondrous experience. Enveloping oneself in the trees and animals, and rivers, yadda yadda yadda…. that’s all fine and well and I totally agree, but what really is this Holy Land that Thoreau is so adamant about?

            I like taking walks. They soothe me. I can escape sometimes and notice things that, in the midst of my everyday routine, I probably wouldn’t normally have noticed before. So yeah, I rather enjoy walks and getting lost, finding new things, and experiencing something new, but does it take me to a “Holy Land?” Well, I don’t know because the question still remains: what is the Holy Land? Do we all individually possess our own or is it just a vast city of unleashed grandeur fantasies?

            Honestly, what it sounds like to me is some sort of make-believe world people make up so that they won’t have to endure reality. Sort of like a Narnia, or Atlantis. I like the idea. I really do. I just don’t like Thoreau or his diction, plain and simple.