"Gatsby turned out alright in the end"

"it is what preyed on Gatsby, what foul dust floated in the wake of his dreams that temporarily closed out my interest in the abortive sorrows and the short-winded elations of men" (Fitzgerald 2).  Clearly, in the most literal sense, Gatsby didn't turn out alright in the end.   So what does Nick mean by this, and what "preyed" on him?   

Nick admits that he  "disapproved of him from beginning to end", but he still found Gatsby such a polarizing character that he had to remain a "friend" to see what transpires.  Nick's role as a pure observer in the story allowed him to understand Gatsby's motivations to every end.  He saw Gatsby's need to flaunt and show his wealth as a way to impress Daisy.  His drive to be a "Trimalchio"-esque character, as Nick pointed out, was what preyed on him.  It was his sole purpose to have Daisy back, as the "foul dust" that "floated in the wake of his dreams", was the memories of the past that he never got over.  The events past took over his decisions.

This and his death suggests that he didn't turn out alright, but remember that this is from Nick's point of view.  Nick seems to be a cynical and neutral narrator, but he still holds his own opinions.  He did not particularly like Gatsby, especially as the story went on, but he saw why he was the way he was.  Maybe his demise was the good ending, and arguably he got everything he wanted, even if it was only for such a little time.  The past took over his motivations, and set his one singular goal in life.  He achieved that goal, and so maybe he did turn out alright

A letter from Mr. Grumps

 Dear parents of my most esteemed students,

    I have been receiving complaints about an image I've shown recently in class that contains "violent" imagery.   Although I understand your worries,  I assure you all that the accusations that I am "traumatizing" your children are baseless and untrue.  As a history teacher it is my job to make sure my students understand historically significant events on every level.  This includes everything and anything about these events that may be horrible, and violent.  I'm sure your teenage students have seen worse by their own volition, especially in this age driven by social media.  Anything in my class however, is relevant to whatever we may be learning and also important.  In an article on Time (https://time.com/3705884/why-violent-news-images-matter/) by Fred Ritchen, he quotes a photographer who asks "How can we refuse to acknowledge a mere representation-- a picture-- of a horrific event, while other people are forced to live through the horrific event itself?"  I'm sure the "trauma" I may be inducing on these mature, high school students is comparable to the trauma that the victims of these horrible events have faced.  The victims', whose experiences of the past are invalidated when people don't learn of them.  As a teacher it is my job to teach, and I will continue to do so.  

                                                                                                                        Sincerely,

                                                                                                                        Mr. Grumps

            

All Bees Sting

    Correlation and causation differ quite a bit, and its pretty common knowledge to know the difference, because supposedly the misunderstanding can lead to many blanket statements that are simply untrue.  And yes, this does happen for many minor things, but also for major ones too.  In fact the misunderstanding of these concepts can be the root of many stereotypes. 

    The article "A Biological Reality" tackles this problem, specifically bringing up the example of the stereotype that "'Black people are better at basketball'".  This conclusion could be made by someone by basing their evidence on the fact that black basketball players seem to dominate the professional scene.  However, as stated in the article, the easy and inexpensive game in the inner city, was very popular with African American youth.  The perceived causation in a certain correlation is the reason stereotypes are created.   

    For example, one that hits closer to home, is the "All Asians are smart" stereotype.  Now sure, it could be taken as a complement, but all stereotypes are inherently problematic in some way, as there is no difference in these characteristics based simply on the way we look.  The correlation that people may observe (if it even exists), could be chalked up to cultural differences, household values, etc.  As the article states "Race does not exist on a genetic level," there is always likely a different reason for our differences and a lack of understanding that could be harmful.

Bug Bites

    "Time Flies," is the title of the second chapter of Art Spiegelmann's MAUS Volume 2.  Immediately, the chapter sets a different tone and breaks from the normalcy of the previous chapters.  Previously, Spiegelman would portray a time in the past where he interviewed his father who recited his own past during the holocaust.    However this chapter takes us to the true present for the first time, and is very meta.  

    Art is exhausted, and is currently writing and drawing the book we are reading.  He recites the years of many events relevant to the story, including the year Vladek died, which is the first time we go this far forward in time.  Art is wearing a mask of a mouse, but underneath he is human, which is unlike the rest of the book (where they are all just humanoid animals).  In the rest of the chapter set in this present, all other characters are humans with the masks of the animals of their respective ethnicities/nationalities.  He questions his own metaphor in this chapter, as perhaps he believes the masks people put up as their identity doesn't change that everyone is a human.  Or maybe he wants to differentiate that this chapter is not the same as the rest of the book, to show that it is written in the present, rather than being a recitation of the past.

  

    However, most importantly, we see the flies (Time flies), which represent the past, buzzing around, biting, and irritating Art, as the bodies of the holocaust under him decompose as he writes.    They return in the end of the chapter to the same effect.  The flies show how intergenerational trauma can work against people who never experienced the holocaust themselves, but how they are affected by the weight of what the people before them have experienced.

"A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words" or whatever.

Well that can't be true, how can a picture ever tell anything like words?

   

Or actually, maybe I can answer that.  We don't always communicate with simply words.  Instead of having to say I'm tired or sleepy, someone could infer that from the way I appear, from the image they see.

Why could this not go for literature?  One picture may not always say "a thousand words," but it can certainly be in place for quite a few.  The stigma against comics and other pictured books may stem from the idea that children use picture books before they mature and become smart enough to read books with only words.  Scott McCloud in "Show and Tell" details this issue, but I ask why we stray away from images.  If they can help children understand complex and abstract ideas that they can't read...

Well, maybe not quite that drastic, but the point is that you understood what I was suggesting and I didn't even have to say it.  The power of an image is far too much to let go unused.  Sure words have their own power in allowing people to have their own interpretation of scenes and ideas, but it's not like pictures can't do that either.  And, hey, why not just use them together, as McCloud suggested.  I could've told you everything in this blogpost with just words, but would you have understood as well without the pictures?  But it wouldn't have made sense without the words either, no?  Maybe it's time for you to delve into a new form of literature that may interest you...