Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Dawn Post 3
We now lean that Elie had a violent past. "I had taken part in various tangles with the police, sabotage operations, in attacks on military convoys making their way across the green fields of Galilee, or the white desert" (Wiesel 21). I wonder what police did to people whom underwent trauma from the Holocaust. What do you do to a man who was forced to say goodbye to his family while naked and being yelled at because of his religion, a man who has seen death on a level that ordinary citizens could never fathom, a man who has seen and been involved with humanity at its worst... What would one say to him? Would he be punished, thrown in jail? What is fair to do with him? After being one of the few survivors, what would happen to him? How would the government ensure that these survivors received the treatment they deserved, and didn't end up corrupt?
Being part of this operation seems the most corrupt thing that Elie could possibly have done. His indoctrination was based on the concept that one needed to be weary of where they stepped and killing was the only way out of anything. "The goal was to simply get the English out; the method, intimidation, terror, and sudden death" (Wiesel 22). Who in their right minds would teach this to children? To young people who have a future? What is the point of this--this sick minded training that is being preformed on people who are already mentally scared, and have seen it all; felt it all?
The thing that I find really interesting is the introduction to the Eleventh Commandment: "Hate your enemy" (Wiesel 23). Rather than hating the enemy, Wiesel steps inside the enemy's shoes. He imagines himself as an SS officer treating Jewish men, women, and children as the Nazi's thought they "deserved" to be treated. This is a turning point in the novel Dawn because rather than hating the enemy, Elie allows himself to give the enemy a face; a chance. Also introduced was the word "comrade." I have grown to dislike this word, especially when calling another man or woman a comrade. This is because it was used in 1984 and Animal Farm by George Orwell, and it seemed as though it was derogatory and degrading. It was used in a hateful way, and a way that was supposed to eliminate any sense of self-worth of the people in the society.
I can't wait to see what happens to Elisha.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Dawn Post 2
We now learn that the young man's name is Elisha. This is a weird name for a man; I have never heard of a man named Elisha prior to reading this book. As of now, I am sure that Elie Wiesel is actually this Elisha. Having read Night by Elie Wiesel and with Dawn being part of the Night trilogy, it makes sense that he is writing again about himself. Although I am confused at the drastic jump from the twelve-year-old boy who looks at the sky and witnesses various faces to the eighteen-year-old man who is assigned to assassinate a man.
As I had assumed in the last section of Dawn, this is not taking place during the war. "after the war..." (Wiesel 11). I find it really interesting how the people of Normandy in France fully paid for Elie Wiesel's education and living. I knew that could have been arranged if one was in trouble, and he seemed to be off fairly well with Gad. However, he was an orphan, and I suppose that would get one what they needed. And since Wiesel was living in a foreign country with a foreign tongue, he needed the education. And his time for the "organization" who is funding his stay is running short--three weeks left until Elie has not one thing to hold on to. Finally we are given some insight to the mysterious character who is mentioned a few times in the previous section of the book. Gad appears to be a man in his This is why Gad could be either a light or road block at the end of the tunnel to Elie now. He has proved to be a road block, because instead of Gad killing the man, he assigns Elie to do so.
Through reading this section, we learn that Elie Wiesel was in a concentration camp between the ages of twelve and eighteen (the young boy was twelve and not in the concentration camp, and the man he became is now eighteen and about to kill someone.) I find it interesting that someone would appoint one who has been through the concentration camps and seen death and far worse--to kill a man of which could be a friend. Why did Elie Wiesel write about his passion for philosophy?
Another quote that I found surprising was one spoken by Elie: "'The future,' I answered 'is of little interest to me'" (Wiesel 13). If I were set up to become someone whom I dreaded not to be, I would want as much insight into my future as this strange figure could offer me. I suppose that one might be drained of all hope after being stuck in a concentration camp for one-third of ones life, yet one might still show interest in what lies ahead of them. Obviously, Elie wanted to know about his future, because Gad has reoccured throughout the book many times.
The opening line of Dawn was "Somewhere a child began to cry" (Wiesel 3). Then, Wiesel mentions it on page 18 when it is said that "Outside the child was still crying." This has to have some significance to the situation, for it is mentioned twice and I shall record when I read something related to a child crying again. A child crying--to me--symbolizes hurt, treachery, pain, and struggle. When a child cries, something is wrong, something that adults cannot always understand. Maybe that is its meaning--when Elie cannot understand something, he refers to the child. In this case, on page 18, he cannot understand why this man has come to him, why he is so keen on Elie's future, and seems to disregard his own.
As I had assumed in the last section of Dawn, this is not taking place during the war. "after the war..." (Wiesel 11). I find it really interesting how the people of Normandy in France fully paid for Elie Wiesel's education and living. I knew that could have been arranged if one was in trouble, and he seemed to be off fairly well with Gad. However, he was an orphan, and I suppose that would get one what they needed. And since Wiesel was living in a foreign country with a foreign tongue, he needed the education. And his time for the "organization" who is funding his stay is running short--three weeks left until Elie has not one thing to hold on to. Finally we are given some insight to the mysterious character who is mentioned a few times in the previous section of the book. Gad appears to be a man in his This is why Gad could be either a light or road block at the end of the tunnel to Elie now. He has proved to be a road block, because instead of Gad killing the man, he assigns Elie to do so.
Through reading this section, we learn that Elie Wiesel was in a concentration camp between the ages of twelve and eighteen (the young boy was twelve and not in the concentration camp, and the man he became is now eighteen and about to kill someone.) I find it interesting that someone would appoint one who has been through the concentration camps and seen death and far worse--to kill a man of which could be a friend. Why did Elie Wiesel write about his passion for philosophy?
Another quote that I found surprising was one spoken by Elie: "'The future,' I answered 'is of little interest to me'" (Wiesel 13). If I were set up to become someone whom I dreaded not to be, I would want as much insight into my future as this strange figure could offer me. I suppose that one might be drained of all hope after being stuck in a concentration camp for one-third of ones life, yet one might still show interest in what lies ahead of them. Obviously, Elie wanted to know about his future, because Gad has reoccured throughout the book many times.
The opening line of Dawn was "Somewhere a child began to cry" (Wiesel 3). Then, Wiesel mentions it on page 18 when it is said that "Outside the child was still crying." This has to have some significance to the situation, for it is mentioned twice and I shall record when I read something related to a child crying again. A child crying--to me--symbolizes hurt, treachery, pain, and struggle. When a child cries, something is wrong, something that adults cannot always understand. Maybe that is its meaning--when Elie cannot understand something, he refers to the child. In this case, on page 18, he cannot understand why this man has come to him, why he is so keen on Elie's future, and seems to disregard his own.
Dawn Post 1
The first quote which seemed to jump out of the page all three times that I read it in the novel Dawn by Elie Wiesel was: "A beggar taught me, a long time ago, how to distinguish night from day" (Wiesel 4). This was on the second page of the novel, which leads me to believe that I am going to stumble across many more quotes that seem to breathe and voice opinions. To me, this was a fabulous way to begin the book and introduce a character. It demonstrates the young man's (we learn the perspective is that of a twelve-year-old boy) ability to think critically well beyond what any other child in his age group should have the capacity to do so. This ability is forwarded to the section where he learns to distinguish night from day and associate a face with it; "I looked out the window where a shadowy face was taking shape out of the deep of the night. A sharp pain caught my throat. I could not take my eyes off the face. It was my own" (Wiesel 6). To me, these lines in the book appeared to show that the young boy is pure. For when the old beggar man describes to him that "Night is purer than day" (Wiesel 5) is when the young boy associates faces with the end to a dark day and the entrance into a pure night.
I wonder what the significance of the execution was. For over two pages, Elie Wiesel describes the hanging that is going to take place. The man whose destiny is a hanging seems to have had a great reputation. He was kidnapped, which to me seems harsh. Thought the author has not revealed which country he resides in, it appears to be Germany. The child and the old beggar man pray in the synagogue, which leads me to believe that it is Germany during World War I because the English and the Germans were rivals. Also, with the man John Dawson--who is told to have been an English Captain in the English military--being English, this adds to the reasons why this story takes place in Germany. With no real reason for his capture (or so it appears in the story as of now) the Germans wanted to make it blatantly clear to the English military that they would be willing to capture and arrest any man whom they find wandering around their streets as though it belonged to them. This was no place for friends, yet the little boy and the beggar seem to have found each other. John Dawson could be the start of a revolution. High power people think that the German's won't go through with the massacre of John Dawson, while others are spiteful. What this character whom we have no information into his personal life represents, could transfigure the world and alter who rules it because of the disagreement as to what should be done with him, and what actually will be done with him. Who is this little boy and how does his fate relate to that of the now infamous John Dawson?
Pogrom: Noun: An organized massacre of a particular ethnic group. This word is used in the mind of the boy as a hateful word. It is used to show that the English weren't capable of hurting anyone: "'World opinion wouldn't tolerate it'" (Wiesel 7). To me, this is an ugly word--ugly sounding and a terrible meaning. Pogrom is just another tool that Elie Wiesel uses to show how intelligent the boy is, and how he can figure out any aspect of life, and how he respects that life can be (and happens to be in the world that he lives in) a pogrom.
I wonder what the significance of the execution was. For over two pages, Elie Wiesel describes the hanging that is going to take place. The man whose destiny is a hanging seems to have had a great reputation. He was kidnapped, which to me seems harsh. Thought the author has not revealed which country he resides in, it appears to be Germany. The child and the old beggar man pray in the synagogue, which leads me to believe that it is Germany during World War I because the English and the Germans were rivals. Also, with the man John Dawson--who is told to have been an English Captain in the English military--being English, this adds to the reasons why this story takes place in Germany. With no real reason for his capture (or so it appears in the story as of now) the Germans wanted to make it blatantly clear to the English military that they would be willing to capture and arrest any man whom they find wandering around their streets as though it belonged to them. This was no place for friends, yet the little boy and the beggar seem to have found each other. John Dawson could be the start of a revolution. High power people think that the German's won't go through with the massacre of John Dawson, while others are spiteful. What this character whom we have no information into his personal life represents, could transfigure the world and alter who rules it because of the disagreement as to what should be done with him, and what actually will be done with him. Who is this little boy and how does his fate relate to that of the now infamous John Dawson?
Pogrom: Noun: An organized massacre of a particular ethnic group. This word is used in the mind of the boy as a hateful word. It is used to show that the English weren't capable of hurting anyone: "'World opinion wouldn't tolerate it'" (Wiesel 7). To me, this is an ugly word--ugly sounding and a terrible meaning. Pogrom is just another tool that Elie Wiesel uses to show how intelligent the boy is, and how he can figure out any aspect of life, and how he respects that life can be (and happens to be in the world that he lives in) a pogrom.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
The DaVinci Code Post 8
The ending of this book was the worst ending to a book ever! Between the capture of Leigh Teabing and the supposed renouncement of Bezu Fache from the Police Department, it was all too quick! To me, it seemed as though the ends were not tied up and the sudden interest Sophie displayed in Robert Langdon should have been harvested and cultured throughout the book, and not just slammed on the reader at the last possible instant!
I absolutely despised how Sophie met her brother and her grandmother for the first time. I see now that Sanuire hid his wife and infant grandson for their protection (because the people who murdered Sophie's parents would want to take down the rest of the family as well), but it was a terrible way to introduce them. Why would a man give up his wife? Why would he not let Sophie meet her baby brother (or reconvene with them for the last time) and say goodbye to her grandmother? It all doesn't make sense, and all we hear of them really is the reunion within the home across from the Rosslyn (or Roslin, which ever way one fancies to spell it). Her brother seemed curious, yet it was such a terrible line in the novel when Dan Brown writes: "She did not know the young man's face, but as they embraced, she could feel the power of the blood coursing hrough his veins...the blood she now understood they shared" (Brown 475). After all this time telling Langdon about her baby brother having been killed in a car accident and being fed that information by the police and her own grandfather, this happens. This doesn't make any sense why he would do that... I just thought it was an inconclusive way to end a novel upwards of five-hundred pages. It was now a waste of my time to have even picked up this book.
Overall, I thought that the writing style in the beginning and middle of the book was quite inciting and made me want to continue reading. However, the ending was shabby and if I knew it would have such a loose and inconclusive ending, I would have not read it. The book ends (the final ending, the last words) as such that Langdon is left with another quest... or is he? "For a moment, he thought he heard a woman's voice... the wisdom of the ages... whispering up from the chasms of the earth" (Brown 489). What does this give to the reader? What is it supposed to mean? Is this woman Mary Magdelene or Sophie's grandmother? Is it his own mother... Who is this woman?
I absolutely despised how Sophie met her brother and her grandmother for the first time. I see now that Sanuire hid his wife and infant grandson for their protection (because the people who murdered Sophie's parents would want to take down the rest of the family as well), but it was a terrible way to introduce them. Why would a man give up his wife? Why would he not let Sophie meet her baby brother (or reconvene with them for the last time) and say goodbye to her grandmother? It all doesn't make sense, and all we hear of them really is the reunion within the home across from the Rosslyn (or Roslin, which ever way one fancies to spell it). Her brother seemed curious, yet it was such a terrible line in the novel when Dan Brown writes: "She did not know the young man's face, but as they embraced, she could feel the power of the blood coursing hrough his veins...the blood she now understood they shared" (Brown 475). After all this time telling Langdon about her baby brother having been killed in a car accident and being fed that information by the police and her own grandfather, this happens. This doesn't make any sense why he would do that... I just thought it was an inconclusive way to end a novel upwards of five-hundred pages. It was now a waste of my time to have even picked up this book.
Overall, I thought that the writing style in the beginning and middle of the book was quite inciting and made me want to continue reading. However, the ending was shabby and if I knew it would have such a loose and inconclusive ending, I would have not read it. The book ends (the final ending, the last words) as such that Langdon is left with another quest... or is he? "For a moment, he thought he heard a woman's voice... the wisdom of the ages... whispering up from the chasms of the earth" (Brown 489). What does this give to the reader? What is it supposed to mean? Is this woman Mary Magdelene or Sophie's grandmother? Is it his own mother... Who is this woman?
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
The DaVinci Code Post 7
This section of the book (chapters seventy-seven through ninety) had me on the edge of my seat the whole entire time! All of a sudden, Aringarosa, Fache, Remy, and Silas become one story, and Langdon and Sophia are... well I will leave that up to interpretation.
As the reader, by ninety-percent through the book, we should have an idea as to what kind of person Jacquies Sanuire was. Although I feel like I had a grasp on his character, I was not expecting a cryptex inside of a cryptex! Once the first one was cracked, my heart began beating faster and faster and I was suddenly excited because... The holy grail had been unraveled! After centuries, with only one man on Earth at a time knowing its true past and its true hiding... Instead, they unfold this clue that should lead them to the Holy Grail. After Sir Leigh Teabings lecture as to why the Holy Grail is actually Mary Magdalene. She was supposedly Jesus Christ's girlfriend. According to the book, she was one of Jesus's most celebrated disciples and he cleansed her of her deamons. This is evident in the painting by Leonardo DaVinci--the Last Supper. Her and Jesus seem to be connected at the hip, creating the symbol for "female." There is more on this matter in the previous posts.
One aspect of the book that I found amazing was a list of the Priory of Sion's elitist members--and the dates that they served. It begins in 1188, and wraps up in 1963. I am assuming that the list is missing Jacques Sanuire, which should be the name from 1963-200X. There are several high-profile and well-known names on the list, such as Jean de Saint-Clair, Nicholas Flamel, Leonardo DaVinci (yet another DaVinci Connection), Victor Hugo, and Jean Couteau.
I wonder how long Fache knew (relative to the time that we have been following Langdon and Sophie's adventure). On the phone with Sophie, he said that "Listen. I made a terrible mistake tonight. Robert Langdon is innocent. All charges against him have been dropped. Even so, both of you are in danger. You need to come in." (397) Then, Fache (who we thought to be the bad guy, which turns out to be the rat-like man, Remy) says that "You did not tell me that Jacques Sanuire was your grandfather. I fully intend to overlook your insuboordinance last night on account of the emotional stress you must be under. At the moment, however, you and Langdon need to go to the nearest London police headquarters for refuge." (397) Later when I was reading, I noticed something that made me think that Fache was really NOT on their side, and he might have been luering Sophie in to his trap: " Fache set it back in the box and gazed absently out the jet's window at the hangar, pondering his brief conversation with Sophie, as well as the information he'd received from PTS in Chateau Villette. The sound of his phone shook him from his daydream." (398) This paragraph makes me second-guess his actions.
Overall, I can't wait to finish this book! Is Fache a bad man, or does he truly have great intentions? What is going to happen to Collet--will he lose his job? Will his bank be exposed? I don't trust Remy (obviously)--and is Sir Leigh Teabing on Remy's side, and is he just posing for Langdon and Sophie's trust (because they have the ketstone and the key to Leigh's life goals)? So much to look out for on Post 8 of The DaVinci Code!
As the reader, by ninety-percent through the book, we should have an idea as to what kind of person Jacquies Sanuire was. Although I feel like I had a grasp on his character, I was not expecting a cryptex inside of a cryptex! Once the first one was cracked, my heart began beating faster and faster and I was suddenly excited because... The holy grail had been unraveled! After centuries, with only one man on Earth at a time knowing its true past and its true hiding... Instead, they unfold this clue that should lead them to the Holy Grail. After Sir Leigh Teabings lecture as to why the Holy Grail is actually Mary Magdalene. She was supposedly Jesus Christ's girlfriend. According to the book, she was one of Jesus's most celebrated disciples and he cleansed her of her deamons. This is evident in the painting by Leonardo DaVinci--the Last Supper. Her and Jesus seem to be connected at the hip, creating the symbol for "female." There is more on this matter in the previous posts.
One aspect of the book that I found amazing was a list of the Priory of Sion's elitist members--and the dates that they served. It begins in 1188, and wraps up in 1963. I am assuming that the list is missing Jacques Sanuire, which should be the name from 1963-200X. There are several high-profile and well-known names on the list, such as Jean de Saint-Clair, Nicholas Flamel, Leonardo DaVinci (yet another DaVinci Connection), Victor Hugo, and Jean Couteau.
I wonder how long Fache knew (relative to the time that we have been following Langdon and Sophie's adventure). On the phone with Sophie, he said that "Listen. I made a terrible mistake tonight. Robert Langdon is innocent. All charges against him have been dropped. Even so, both of you are in danger. You need to come in." (397) Then, Fache (who we thought to be the bad guy, which turns out to be the rat-like man, Remy) says that "You did not tell me that Jacques Sanuire was your grandfather. I fully intend to overlook your insuboordinance last night on account of the emotional stress you must be under. At the moment, however, you and Langdon need to go to the nearest London police headquarters for refuge." (397) Later when I was reading, I noticed something that made me think that Fache was really NOT on their side, and he might have been luering Sophie in to his trap: " Fache set it back in the box and gazed absently out the jet's window at the hangar, pondering his brief conversation with Sophie, as well as the information he'd received from PTS in Chateau Villette. The sound of his phone shook him from his daydream." (398) This paragraph makes me second-guess his actions.
Overall, I can't wait to finish this book! Is Fache a bad man, or does he truly have great intentions? What is going to happen to Collet--will he lose his job? Will his bank be exposed? I don't trust Remy (obviously)--and is Sir Leigh Teabing on Remy's side, and is he just posing for Langdon and Sophie's trust (because they have the ketstone and the key to Leigh's life goals)? So much to look out for on Post 8 of The DaVinci Code!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)