Readings for Week 12: Short Stories

Dear All,


For Monday, you will need to read Mark Twain's "The Facts Concerning the Recent Carnival of Crime in Connecticut":

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3183/3183-h/3183-h.htm

And for Wednesday, Charles Chesnutt's "The Goophered Grapevine":

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11666/11666-h/11666-h.htm#chap1

I will also have given you an essay by Henri Bergson called "The Comic in Character" for Monday.  With the digital texts, please either print these out and bring them to class, or take careful notes on them that you can bring to class.

Best,
Jennifer

Cyrano > Roxanne > Christian

In Edmond Rostand’s play, Cyrano de Bergerac, most of the characters experience “love.” However, is any of it really a true love? Cyrano loves Roxanne with all his heart, but has trouble loving himself, which holds him back. Roxanne loves Christian for his looks and what she thinks is his expressing of his love for her. Christian loves Roxanne from the moment he laid his eyes on her. Is that love at first sight? Or simply just lust? These conflicting definitions of love contribute greatly to the reader’s perception of who is right and who is wrong in Cyrano de Bergerac. In my opinion, Cyrano is the one that has the truest love towards Roxanne. Although he is scared to admit his love, and sometimes self-conscious about his large nose, the way he writes amazingly, sweet letters to Roxanne is not just a skill. Cyrano must feel the love that is stated in his letters. Therefore, his love is true for Roxanne. However, for Christian, even though he professes his love for Roxanne many times over, he cannot verbalize it in a way that is impressive, or truly thoughtful. If someone loves another person, he or she should be able to verbalize why and prove to you why he or she feels that way. Even if it is not composed in a perfect poem or with impressive vocabulary, telling someone how much and why you love him or her is an important part of any relationship where true love is present. Christian fails to do this, which is why I believe that Cyrano’s love for Roxanne is much greater. As for Roxanne, she is being deceived by the two men and falling in love with one’s looks and another’s words. There is no reason why her love is not true; however, she’s falling in love with a person that does not really exist. Therefore, her love is not as true as Cyrano’s but she has no idea why or how her love is not true. Overall, the three all have room to improve to make their love more true, but out of the three, Cyrano definitely has the best heart.

Blog Prompts for Cyrano

Dear All,


Below are a few questions to choose from for your blog. Per usual, strive for 300-450 words of grammatical, clear, analytical prose!

1. Which of the characters do you believe loves most truly: Cyrano, Christian, or Roxane? Strive to go well beyond the obvious.

2. Compare one character in Rostrand's play to a character in Wilde's.

3. Is the ending of the play tragic, inspiring, or somehow both? Has Cyrano lived up to his standards of honor, his "white plume"?

4. Discuss what you believe to be the wittiest quote from the play. What makes it the best one? Is it a clever paradox? Does it reveal a deeper truth? Is it used in a particularly brilliant way?

Back to school

Carmen Solis


The sophisticated and witty dialogue between the characters in The Importance of Being Ernest shows that Oscar Wilde had in mind a purpose which is to show that even the upper class have flaws. Upper class is often portrayed as hypocrites because they get what they want with money and, not to mention, by their names. In his play, Wilder portrays Mr. Algernon and Mr. Jack, high-class gentlemen, as immoral and amusing men. In one of the dialogues Mr. Algernon is talking to himself saying that “if the lower orders don’t set us a good example, what on earth is the use of them? They seem, as a class, to have absolutely no sense of moral responsibility” (6). I find this absurd because high class is the ones whom everyone has their eyes on. They are supposed to be well-educated and well-manner. But in the play, this seems ironically since no one is behaving as they are portrayed. For instance, Algernon is not a perfectly good example as what a moral person should act like. He is judging the “lower class” for not setting a good example, but he is also doing immoral actions. He is not honest and does not take anything seriously. He “bunburyist” to get what he wants; bunburying is to create an unreal character to act like them so that those people can do anything as they pleased without “staining” their names. This is what Mr. Jack and Mr. Algernon do. By reading the play, one can see that there is nothing moral in the way how the characters act. Another example from the play is when Mr. Jack announces to Miss Prism and Mr. Chasuble that his “brother” is dead (30) not knowing that Mr. Algernon disguises himself as “Ernest”. He shows grief in his speech, but then he suddenly grows surprise and speechless when he finds out that “Ernest” is alive (32). I wonder, why did not Miss Prism or Mr. Chasuble say something to Mr. Jack for lying about something so horrible? Instead they took it as nothing has happened and keep their lives going. Wilde is satirizing the rich people for their actions in order for us, the readers, to see how ridiculous they act.

It Is Too Easy

In his play The Importance of Being Earnest Oscar Wilde takes advantage of the socially accepted fact that rich people can and will get away with anything. Most people are taught from a very young age that doing something wrong, like lying, will result in negative consequences. The upbringing of wealthy people and the characters in the play must have no effect on how they view doing something wrong because they, Algernon and Jack in particular, seem not to think twice about telling numerous lies just to get what they want. The fact that the men tell so many lies and in the end still get what they want is what makes this play immoral. Wealthy people in the real world do immoral things and seem to get out of them with no more than a slap on the wrist, take Paris Hilton for example. The wealthy Algernon and Jack are found out in their heap of lies yet they are still rewarded with the love of their choosing. They have no negative consequences as a result of their lies. The play would not be as entertaining if the men did get punished and we can therefore surmise that Wilde must have purposely taken advantage of the fact that rich people can basically do no wrong. As far as hypocrisy goes, the reader must notice how Jack seems to vehemently oppose Algernon’s act of Bunburying even though Jack himself is, what Algernon calls, “One of the most advanced Bunburyists I know” (11). Jack denies Algernon’s assertion by saying, “I’m not a Bunburyist at all” (11), but the readers know just as well as Algernon that Ernest is a perfect example of a hypocrite. Oscar Wilde’s use of these immoral wealthy characters makes his play humorous and allows readers and viewers to laugh at the mess rich people get themselves into and then, just as easily mind you, out of trouble.

I think that Oscar Wilde is making fun of the upper class. I think that he is trying to show the ridiculousness of the formalities and everything that that upper class people do. In a way I feel like he is trying to say, who’s idea was it for all the formalities? If anything love is not a formality, it is anything but formal. It is unexpected and sometimes unwanted, and almost always relentless, but never formal. Love by definition something that drives a person wild. Love is passion and passion is a sense of craziness about something. There is nothing formal about love. Love is not a courting ritual where the women decline because they are to modest to say yes and Wilde is pointing out the absurdity of the whole thing. The couple in The Importance of Being Earnest are ridiculous. They claim to love each other but they really know nothing about each other and they do not treat one another very well. They are not really even in love. They are just conforming to societies expectations of what they should do, even though they do not act like society would expect them to act. Wilde gets everything mixed up and upside down showing that there is nothing formal about love. It is not immoral to point out flaws in some one’s way of acting especially if those people are absurd.

Can I marry her...pleeaassee?

When a man proposes to a woman, it is expected that the girl’s parents should have some say in the matter...at least in the nineteenth century. In the comical dialogue between Lady Bracknell and Jack, they discuss Jack’s character in response to his proposal to Gwendolen. This dialogue seems to be pretty moral, both in the way Jack answers as well as the way Lady Bracknell questions him.

The first question is whether or not Jack smokes. It seems that Jack hesitates to answer when he responds “Well, yes, I must admit I smoke” (17). It seems as if Jack hesitates, because he seems to be worried that Lady Bracknell would put a check against him. However, Gwendolen’s mom seems to take it in stride and say “a man should always have an occupation” which is not at all the response anticipated.

Lady Bracknell approves of Jack’s age, and asks him a trick question: Whether he knows everything or nothing. Once again, Jack answers correctly by stating that he knows nothing. This interview type discussion continues, as Jack seems to please Lady Bracknell more and more. If the dialogue was cut before Jack is asked about his parents, then it could be looked at as moral. Lady Bracknell expresses morality by just seeming to look after her daughter, and trying to make sure Jack is of good character for her. Jack, on the other hand, is also moral because his answers please her and show him as having good character.

However, once Lady Bracknell asks Jack about his parents, the morality of the situation quickly changes. Jack tells her that he doesn’t have parents, which is nothing he can do anything about; he believes them to be dead. Jack wants nothing more than to be with Gwendolen, but Lady Bracknell “suggests” that he must find some sort of relations before the end of the season. Lady Bracknell is too worried about social standing and her daughter marrying a man without parents rather than her happiness. That is quite immoral.

Did they just get away with that?!

Immorality was rampant among the upper class during 19th century English society. This depravity ranged from marital affairs to corrupt business dealings. Although these acts were not confined to the upper class, these select members of the culture were able to get away with much more than normal people. In Oscar Wilde’s play, The Importance of Being Earnest, the ability of the upper class to seemingly get away with hypocritical and immoral actions is satirically shown. First of all, he shows the spoiled nature of these characters. Algernon and Jack are so used to getting their own way that they do not take into consideration the feelings of others. Algernon eats all of his aunt’s cucumber sandwiches even though he promised to have then made especially for her. Both Algernon and Jack lie to the women that they supposedly love,(even though Algernon had only known Cecily for five minutes before he declared his love), about something as petty as their names just to win their favor. Even after they had time to think over their fallacy, they still strived to pull the wool over the ladies’ eyes by being christened under the name of Earnest. Cecily and Gwendolyn also act in a likewise manner. In the span of a conversation, the two upper class ladies go from being “great friends” to poisoning one’s tea with four cubes of sugar all because they lay claim on the same fiancée (38). Above all, the whole idea of Bunburying is immoral. Jack and Algernon make the people closest to them believe that they are full of compassion for “Earnest” and “Bunbury” when really they made up these people to satisfy their own selfishness. I believe that Wilde intentionally shows us these examples of upper class immorality to show the ridiculous extremes that the rich and fashionable people of this time would go through to satisfy their own wants.

Wells review of Human Nature

Blake Ogden
H.G. Wells gives very interesting insight into how The Importance of Being Earnest was originally seen in his review. Wells praises the play for its originality. It was something new and unsuspected. According to Wells, comedies had been becoming very mundane and repetitive, but this play came with “a flavor of rare holiday” (101). Wells acknowledges that the play was complete nonsense but acknowledges that nonsense was good nonsense and very funny. He believes it challenged all the standard conventions of the day in a way that could not possibly be done any better. What may be most interesting of Wells review is his questioning of how “the serious people who populace the city, and to whom it is addressed, how they will take it is another matter” (101). Wells fears that these serious people will miss the entire point of the nonsense by taking it seriously. They will not be able to see the humor taking place before them because instead of enjoying the ridiculousness they will be distracted by it. Wells notes that one such viewer was completely taken away from the play by the simply unconvincing the story of Jack being born in a bag and how it got from one place to the other. By looking at the review we may be able to see into the seriousness this Victorian culture had become submerged in. Wells notes that the majority of the population was the serious people he noted. Because of all the seriousness, they were unable to find something like a satirical play humorous. They could not see the sheer absurdity of some of the actions they themselves might perform. They were unable to laugh at themselves. Wells’ review brings up interesting theories about the people of the day’s nature. For example his statement that “the last production of a play by Mr. Oscar Wilde we said it was fairly bad, and anticipated success” (101) causes one to believe that perhaps the people had become monotonous and set in their ways. They were looking for something new within the theatre but the same “old comedies posing as their own imaginary brothers” (101). They had no desire for something new, a “revival of theatrical satire” (101), something like Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest. Wells sees the play as inventive and worthy of praise. However, he seems to fear that the majority of the culture is to set in their ways, and while it is easy to criticize this culture now we have to examine if our culture’s nature has really changed. Perhaps, Wells is just observing human nature. The idea that the majority will distrust and dislike what is unknown. Often times the majority populace is not welcoming of new and different art. And I’m not so sure that the modern-day majority would openly welcome a play or movie that attempted to humor in a new and unseen way.

H.G. Wells praises Wilde

H.G. Wells writes a review praising Oscar Wilde's play The Importance of Being Earnest. He begins by stating that it is easier to talk nonsense than to listen to it, unless it is good nonsense. He continues by calling the play good nonsense and excellent fooling. In saying this, Wells expresses that the play captured his attention and kept it. He suggests that the play is easy to understand and very entertaining.
Wells continues praising the play by pointing out its originality. He makes a comparison between John Worthing and other comedies, stating that, like John, the other plays were merely “old comedies posing as their own imaginary youngest brothers” (101). By making this comparison, Wells declares that other plays are unoriginal copies of older plays. He admires Wilde for his originality. Wells remarks that the play was written in a Gilbertian style (that is William Gilbert who was best known for his, with Arthur Sullivan's collaboration, comic operas) but was decorated with “with innumerable spangles of that wit that is all his [Wilde's] own” (101). Wells suggests that Wilde took humor that was good, and made it better and in his own original style.
Wells notices that some people seem to take the play too seriously by applying it to real life. He points out that a person “thought that the bag incident was a 'little far-fetched'” (101). The person attempted to picture a real life scenario in which a baby would be left in a bag. The person also did not understand how the bag was at the station and the perambulator was somewhere else entirely. This person was taking the play as a serious matter instead of paying attention to the humor in it. He exemplified E. B. White's analogy of the dissection of a frog to the analysis of humor.
Wells's review relates the question of whether the play is moral or immoral. He points out that people are free to make the decision based on their own interpretation of the play. He notes that the person taking the play very seriously decides that the baby in a bag and the perambulator somewhere else take away from the “convincingness” (101) of the play. Therefore, the question is based on how people interpret the credibility of the play. The same applies to the values of the Decadent or Victorian cultures. If people chose to take the play literally as opposed to figuratively, their values may change between Decadent and Victorian. Possibly even a combination of the two.

Algernon's Acting

Algernon Moncrieff is one of the main characters of Oscar Wilde's, The Importance of Being Earnest. He is one of the funnier characters, also. Algernon is a younger man that is quite wealthy, but is not a serious man about any subject at all. He is focused on enjoying every moment of his life. Algernon does not plan his actions, he simply acts on impulse. To act as he does it would be necessary to have an attractive man who is a quick thinker on his feet. In other words, the actor would need to be able to react to the other characters in a manner that would not be expected. For example, Algernon eats all of the cucumber sandwiches that his servant, Lane, has prepared for Algernon's aunt, Lady Bracknell. Then, Lady Bracknell enters and says "Now I will have a cup of tea, and one of those nice cucumber sandwiches you promised me"(13). The sandwiches were gone, though, because he ate them. Instead of admitting to his fault he automatically blames it on his servant, Lane. Lane replies and says that there were no cucumbers to be found at the store. In this instance the actor performing Algernon would have to show concern and a slight second of panic by looking around the room for an excuse, but once setting his eyes on Lane showing an expression of relief. He would then show concern towards Lady Bracknell and show impatience and aggravation at Lane for not serving the sandwiches. Also, the actor would need to be able to perform Algernon's acting as Earnest, John Worthing's fake brother. The actor would need to be able to act show he is Algernon, but also show that Algernon is learning about what he must do to be Mr. Worthing's brother. He would have to show surprise, but control the emotion as to not reveal Algernon is acting, also. Also, Algernon's clothing would be very stylish according the time as a result of his home being in the city and observing the trends. He would have the most current clothing available because he was constantly acting as other people, which he called Bunburying. These are the characteristics and physical attributes that would be required for an actor to portray Algernon.

bunbury is perfectly invaluable

To say that "the rich are hypocrites" or that they can "get away with anything," is a fairly well-known truth. With money comes power, and in this case, the power to say and do basically whatever you want without the downside of severe consequences. Wilde merely sheds light on the humor that can be associated with it. Instead of focusing on the tragedies in his characters' lives or their burden of humanity, he emphasizes, to an absurd degree, the practically improbable situations the rich can slip into. In terms of hypocrisy, my personal favorite example is the conversation Jack and Algernon have following Lady Bracknell's decline of Jack's proposal to Gwendolen (21). The two discuss their opinions on cleverness, and Wilde's presentation of a superficial yet witty dialogue reveals the petty nature of his two main characters. Jack goes on about his dislike of monotonous cleverness, "[wishing] to goodness we had a few fools left" (21). Algernon's quick reply stating that the fools talk about "the clever people, of course" (21) presents a paradox. The comedic nature of the banter comes not only from its wit but from the ignorance of its tellers. Jack and Algernon are flippantly condescending the fools yet they are doing precisely what fools do without any realization of their contradiction. This naive pridefulness manifests itself in Jack and Algernon's Bunburying excursions as well. With adequate funds, each of them are able to temporarily switch lives, Jack even changes his name for a complete transformation. While most people would never even consider vacationing in such a grandiose manner, Algernon and Jack "invent" (11) a seemingly legitimate excuse to only be where they feel will be most pleasurable for them at the time. Algernon, for instance, uses Bunbury's poor health to exempt himself from a dreaded dinner with his aunt (11). They are rich and can afford to drift across the city and country as they please, but even when they are caught, forgiveness is far too near for reality. Wilde obviously exaggerates the idea that the rich have less consequences because of their means and connections. Everything has a cause and effect, but the wealthy are able to cover the negative ends. Wilde simply shows the exterior as singular effect.

A Little Fun!

Muppets Sing "O Danny Boy" for St. Patrick's Day

Blog: Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest

Dear All,


Per usual, I'll be looking for a clear, interesting, grammatical response (of 300-600 words) to one of the following prompts:

1. Discuss the morality or immorality of one joke (or one short joking dialogue) from the play. (Do discuss something different from what you wrote about in your in-class essay.)

2. Discuss how you think an actor or actress should perform a specific character. Be specific. How should they deliver the lines, dress, and move? You might speculate on what it would be like to have characters perform in drag -- uber-androgyne!

3. Some people believe this is a play that satirizes the immorality of the upper classes, and that one lesson we learn while laughing is that rich people are hypocrites. Some think that Wilde enjoys the fact that rich, fashionable people can get away with anything, and therefore the play itself is immoral. What do you think?

4. Discuss one of the reviews of the play. What does the reviewer value or dislike about the performance? What does the review tell us about the values of Decadent or Victorian culture?

Damn Maid Wont Leave His Stuff Alone!

In the chapter The Blind Panic in the novel Last Chance to See, Adams employs the laughing return technique when he is presented with the challenge of finding a way to get suitable water so he can brush his teeth. The first appearance of the water problem comes when he is “suspicious of the delicate brown color of the water leaking from the washbasin taps” (147). I find this extremely funny especially since here at the school the water that comes out of the tap is also suspicious-looking. Adams then decides that he will use some of the hot water meant to be used for making tea. He pours some hot water out to cool and then goes to have breakfast. The humor returns when he returns to the hotel room and finds that a maid has poured out his cooling water and has refilled the thermoses with fresh boiling water. This adds humor into the situation because he did not expect anyone to come in and mess with his teeth brushing water. It really is not strange to think that a maid would come into the room and clean up, but the next appearance is just plain hilarious. Adams says he “was going to have to come up with some serious strategic thinking if [he] was going to get to clean [his] teeth” (148). He then goes through the trouble of pouring another glass of hot water and then hiding it “out of site in the back of a cupboard” (148). He also tries to get rid of a bottle of the aftershave he bought while on the flight to Shanghai by “hiding it under the bed” (148). After a brief sidetrack into telling about his expedition to see the Great Wall he returns to the hotel. Here he finds that the water he had so carefully hidden had been found by the maid and that the maid had also found his hidden bottle of aftershave and put it back with the other bottles. It is hilarious to think that a maid would go rummaging around a person’s hotel room the way that this maid did. Adams’s use of the laughing return gives the readers a short break from the seriousness of the new task, finding the baiji river dolphin, and allows them to laugh at the ordeal he went through just to brush his teeth.

Up in Arms

Douglas Adams tells us about the obsessive passion of the conservationists of Mauritius in terms of war because it is a war to conserve endangered animals. There is always something that is hindering the conservationists from doing their job. It may be the government, or poachers, or tourists, or the simple fact that the animal is dying off much quicker than they can do anything about it. Adams says that the conservationists are, “like surgeons working just behind the front line” (183). They work hard to take care of these animals to preserve them for future generations just like in a war, those who fight and aid the fighting are working to preserve and ideal or a country for future generations. Also, the comparison to a surgeon is comparing the conservationists to those who are merely aiding in the fight. They are doing the best they can to give the endangered animals everything they need to continue the fight for survival without them. Also by describing the passion of the conservationist in terms of war shows the readers just how passionate the conservationists are. Most readers know of war; they may not have fought in a war but they know someone, or know someone who knows someone that has fought. The readers also know why people fight; the readers know pride in their country and the obsession that it takes to defend that pride. Adams is appealing to this feeling in the readers, this pride in their country to help the reader relate to the conservationists. By relating to the conservationists, the readers may feel more inclined to help and to become a part of the war. This is a book of awareness. Adams does not come right out and say that it is, because the main focus of the book is really the travel and all the problems encountered by Adams and Mark. However, Adams does not make the animals the main focus of the book because we have all heard it before. The sob stories about the dying animals on TV no longer catch our attention. Conservationists are looking for another way to get people to get active and help. Thus Douglas Adams writes Last Chance to See as a humorous way to show us that by not helping conserve animals we are actually aiding in their demise and by comparing the obsession shown by conservationists, Adams is trying to get the reader to relate to the conservationists in an effort to get everyone ‘up in arms’ to save the planet.

Adam = Goddall

Carmen Solis
03-04-10
Dr. Hughes

In the book, Carl, Adam, and other “scientists” were heading to Mauritius which is described as being a “war zone.” It does not literally mean that in Mauritius a war is going on, but, nonetheless, it is considered like that because of the high number of extinct species that it has. The ecology is being diminished little by little causing species to die or move somewhere else. The “surgeons working behind the front line” are actually the scientists that are working tremendously to try to protect, defend, flourish the ecology; one of the “surgeons” is Adam. Practically, scientists are the voice of the endangered species as the soldiers are the voice of the whole nation. Like the author says Mauritius was “famous for its abundant beauty now is in desperate trouble.” This shows that Mauritius is in great need for people to help them out to be the place once again where the species can exist peacefully. We need people like Jane Goodall that gives her life for her chimpanzees. As well Adam has given his life for the animals and the wild life in Mauritius. His comparison with the war has made me realize how bad the wildlife in Mauritius is now. At first he says it was a beautiful place and now is like a war field. He compares war with the forest because in a war you see disaster and emptiness. Mauritius is starting to be seen this way as a war field. The war only leaves dead lives and in Mauritius the animals’ life is beginning to be extinct. When something is compare to the war people can only think of sadness. This is why Adam compares the jobs of the scientists with the jobs of a soldier; only to bring conscience to what he is trying to persuade.

Ain't nothin' like a little war

“Mauritius is a war zone” (183). Had I been given just this sentence and had no prior knowledge as to what context this phrase was used in, I would think of a World War II era scene. I see soldiers screaming, shells flying, bombs and helicopters blowing up. Blood splatters across the brown, dirty ground as troops struggle through exhaustion in order to fight for their country. The central emotion I feel is a sense of despair, as if nothing that could go right will; but that’s only if Mauritius was an actual war zone.

Mauritius is in desperate trouble, ecologically speaking. Upon arriving, Adams is thrown into this war zone, where scientists play the role of “surgeons working behind the front line.” The idea of a war zone does quite well to relate to the habitat in Mauritius, which was once flourishing and beautiful but is now struggling to deal with water pollution, soil erosion, and wildlife preservation (www.nationsencylclopedia.com). Mauritius is having a tough time, and these scientists are struggling to save multiple bird species and of course the Rodrigues fruit bat that brings Adams and company to the area in the first place.

Through giving the subtle war zone imagery that Adams gives, he is able to convey the devastation and troubles that the small African island is going through without actually saying it. This is all part of the skill that Adams has with his vocabulary and sentence structure. Adams’s reason for doing this is to subliminally tell readers that this island is having a lot of problems and it needs a lot of help. This fits in with the rest of the book, which is all about the many different endangered species on Earth, attempting to ask the human race to help preserve these species. Adams never directly asks for help, but just aims to inform readers of situations elsewhere in the world, and tries to connect with them, through the text, on an emotional level. Adams aims solely to inspire the world to help save the planet by informing us of the beauty out there.

Watch Out!

If Douglas Adams does not present his sarcasm and metaphors throughout the book, then it would be very easy for a reader to misunderstand what he means when he writes that "Ecologically speaking, Mauritius is a war zone. . "(183). This could be mistaken that there are many animals and plants fighting against each other, physically. However, this is not true. Adams is trying to relate how difficult and intense the job of Carl, Richard, and several others is. They are attempting to save the multiple species of birds, and the Rodrigues fruit bats. The bats are the central reason for Adams and his companions visiting Mauritius. Adams says these ecologists "are like surgeons working just behind the front line"(183). Adams is trying to portray just how serious and devoted these people are to saving the endangered animals found on Mauritius. They have a huge load of work to do towards each species. The effect the reader will perceive from this is amazement at how devoted a group of people can be toward birds. Yes, birds, and not any national emblem that would stun a country if it was lost. These are just magnificent people attempting to save "some of the rarest, sexiest birds in the world"(183).
Adams is showing these ecologists, their duties, and their dedication to open ignorant minds to the fact that these birds need someone to help them, too. Also, this shows how serious these birds situation is. There is one bird named "Pink"(184), who is the main supplier of semen to the females of the species, Mauritius kestrel. He is a bird that believes he is a human because he was born and the first animal he saw was Carl, which resulted in Pink thinking that was his mother and that was what he was supposed to become one day. Pink does not know he is a bird, but he is very attracted to a hat that Carl has. When females mature, which is before the males, Pink must contribute his man-juice to allow the females to reproduce again. He does this by making love to the hat that Carl puts on in times of need. This is all told in the story to show how far these people will go to preserve these endangered birds.

get out of my way, asshole!

As we travel through our daily lives, we all take certain things for granted. We assume that the water in the toilet will always spin the same way, and we assume a specific gesture will always mean the same thing. Assuming is a dangerous thing because “Assumptions are the things you don’t know you’re making, which is why it is so disorienting” (143). In addition, “the shock is that it had never occurred to you that there was any other way of doing it. In fact, you had never even thought about it at all, and suddenly, here it is – different. When Douglas Adams is in China, he realizes that numerous things are done differently there, including the smallest things like hand gestures and behaviors. Adams states, “In the Western world, to ring a bell or sound a horn is usually an aggressive thing to do. . . . If you hear a lot of horns blowing on a New York street, you know that people are in a dangerous mood” (158-159). Adams’ assumption is correct; when I was raised, I was taught that blowing a car horn at someone is rude, and that it should rarely be used. However, Adams realizes that “In China. . . the sound means something else entirely. It doesn’t mean, ‘get out of my way asshole.’ It just means a cheerful ‘here I am’” (159). If something as small as honking the car horn is different in China, then being in a brand new place where you know no one must be extremely disorienting. Adams uses these small details to reiterate the fact that the rest of the world is very different than the United States, and he uses the humor to mask the terrible disorientation that comes when having all prior assumptions proved wrong.

she obviously had no conception of the value of gold

Adams concludes his journey across the world on the search for endangered animals with a simple summary of "the story of the Sybilline books" (215). He uses this as a metaphor for the world's relentless squandering of natural resources and wildlife. The animals and their habitats are the essential counterparts to human existence and to the functioning of the ecosystem. Yet, we have begun to severely underestimate our reliance upon them and instead traded their well-being for "gold" (216). Like the farmers on Mauritius destroying the forest and everything within it to increase their profits (198), the townsmen in the story focus on the immediate benefits of keeping their wealth instead of obtaining knowledge and wisdom that would help them in later years. Similarly, the capitalist mindset of most governments and peoples has led to the detriment of hundreds of thousands of acres of unique landscapes and animals for a positive profit margin for the next year. But, when we have suddenly eradicated something, a shocking realization occurs. For example, Adams discusses the extinction of the dodo (204), probably the most widely known destruction of a species purely by human hands (quite literally in this case). After this tragedy, many people hoped this would bring about remorse and change from humanity. As Adams says, "we are merely sadder and better informed" (205) as "there are now more than a thousand diferent species of animals and plants becoming extinct every year" (212). Adams places the story of the books of knowledge and wisdom at the end because it summarizes his years of observations. People have decimated species until there are so few the animals have to be captured and bred in captivity in order to possibly see another generation. He believes that man will continue to destroy the Earth until he is so desperate for survival that he takes what little he has kept and finally starts to appreciate its true worth.

Human Echolocation Explains It All

Although Douglas Adams has traveled many extreme locations for the sake of his writing, China seems to have set him on the brink of a nervous breakdown. He is so anxious on the flight over that he unthinkingly buys six bottles of aftershave even thought they smell “horrid” (149). Adams is not worried for naught for he discovers that China is in fact a very confusing country. However, he uses these confusing moments to add a humorous aspect to his accounts. One example of this is when he is observing China’s transportation methods. As he watches the bicycles, trolley buses, and trucks “converging on the intersection”, he is convinced that he is about to bear witness to “major carnage” (158). When all of the vehicles emerge unscathed, Adams is awed and confused about how it happened. He decides to humorously turn to the baiji dolphin for an explanation and compares the method of the commuters to the dolphin’s method of echolocation. He states that the dolphins see by “emitting sequences of tiny clicks… and communicate with other baijis by making whistling noises” (155). Likewise, there seems to be a continuous ringing of bells by the Chinese which is their way of communicating “here I am here I am here I am…” (159). His comparison of these humans to the “blind panic” experienced by the dolphins is humorous because it is unexpected. While the dolphins are swimming around in the mucky waters of the Yangtze River trying to avoid the rudders of transportation boats, the cyclists are trying to navigate the extremely busy thoroughfares of the streets of China without being mutilated by a swiftly approaching bus. Although many people would not think to compare the echolocation of dolphins to the human methods of “spatial perception”, Adams’ thought process makes this connection to explain the confusion that he finds in a humorous way (159).

Week 8 Blog: Douglas Adams

Dear All,


Below are four questions about Douglas Adams's Last Chance to See. Please select one and answer it with a coherent, grammatical response of 300-600 words.

1. At the chapter "Blind Panic," Adams reminds us that "[a]ssumptions are the things you don't know you're making." This is a chapter about coping with disorientation, of having your assumptions challenged, of learning to realize that different assumptions could be at play. Choose a section of this chapter and discuss how humor is a way of coping with this sense of confusion.

2. Adams employs a literary humor technique called "the laughing return." In laughing returns, the author makes reference to something that he joked about in another part of the text, either reintroducing the joke or twisting how we laugh at it when we see it again. Find an example of a laughing return in the book and discuss how the humor evolves through its repetition.

3. On page 183, Adams describes the obsessive passion of the conservationists of Mauritius in the terms of war. What is the potential effect on the reader? Why does Adams do this?

4. Douglas Adams, for final words, expresses a concern not for the rare and endangered animals he has been seeking, but for "us." What, after finishing this book, does Adams think is endangered about human beings?