If we can all agree to the central idea that graffiti kicks ass, I think there are some interesting conflicts that were had in class the other day. Now to kick it off, I'd like to address the misconception Morgan had about graf (as we will herein call it) being vandalism, or a crime. Now, she was saying that she wouldn't like it if someone graffitied on, or "tagged" her car, and tried to wrongly persecute the art form with this example. The fact is, no right-minded tagger would WANT to bomb her automobile. It would simply defeat the purpose of tagging in the first place. 

As stated by the NY Mag article, the reason for graffitiing on buildings and train cars (less now than the 90s, but more on that later) is that the tagger is gaining public exposure. To bomb a white girl's car in our wealthy caucasian neighborhood would only be a waste of paint. There is just not enough appreciation in our "'hood" for graf. This segues us into our next re-interpretive misinterpretation, Katie's comment about the meaning behind the tag determining whether it was a work of art. Graffiti artists determine the meaning behind the tag, not some snoody ass critic wearing a beret sipping his espresso. If a graffiti artist paints a mural on the side of a building, then it is art. If he writes "Fuck", with a pictorial depiction of stick figures performing the act next to it, then he is making a statement against the building he has tagged. The sincerity of the message must be heartfelt,  or else the tagger is parodying an art form and means of communication. And when you parody something sincere you look like an idiot.

As for graffiti's acceptance into pop culture, there is a cruel irony surrounding the paradox of consumerism versus self proclamation and profit. For example, there is a game for the Nintendo coming out soon entitled "WiiSpray", a collaboration involving Nintendo and Montana Cans, a spray can company. The game features a tagger protagonist (lol), and is all about bombing buildings and making your own tag. Also, the well-known artist from New Jersey "Kaws" is now a multimillionaire because of his graffiti. He owns a clothing and vinyl-producing company known as Original Fake, and has worked together with influential people in the fashion industry such as Nigo, Pharrell, and the Prada house. This is a good idea of graffiti going mainstream, but staying underground in the big picture.  On the other hand, the authoritarian hate for graf is all around you every time you're in a major city. Up until the very late 90s, subway cars were painted a dark red, and made of a more environmentally-friendly material than the ugly silver ones we ride today. Being narrow-minded and hardheaded as people in positions of power usually are, the MTA and New York Mayor's office decided put the artistic energy and creativity of graf artists everywhere in a chokehold. They got rid of the nostalgic red cars only because they were an easier surface to tag on than the new silver behemoths.

Graffiti artists are wrongly persecuted for an amazing art form that they built from the ground up. It is shocking to see such censorship in our modern America, and one can only hope that it ends soon.

graffiti

In the excerpt of the interview with "Dondi," Dondi says, "they don't know what its like with all that freedom, all that power knowing that someone might admire this work by an unknown artist." I think it's really interesting how he mentions this idea of connection. A lot of people think art brings people together (especially in literature and music). I never really thought of how a graffiti is just another way of displaying art. Its canvas is anywhere, and that makes it really accessable to the public, which is often an issue with art. It's really cool that graffiti artists actually take their veiwer into consideration. Or at least Dondi does.

graffiti

after reading the New York magazine article all that was left resonating in my head is how cool it is to think that art is moving.  LEE says "the movement is about movement" with that being said its so interesting that the art is on a subway or train that is also moving, obviously as the artists shared this was on purpose.  i think its amazing that there are people with such dedication to their work that they will do anything to share it.  to think that graffiti was used to bring color and life to a depressing new york is fascinating.  enough rambling on graffiti but andrews writing touched upon the whole movement that followed graffiti. i loved reading the interviews from the older graffiti artists because now that they are adults they are still proud of what they did and do not regret taking the risks.  i guess there can only be one lesson from this seize the day to make a change.

Graffiti

I think graffiti is often misrepresented. It fulfills the functions of language. It is used to unite a group of people from all over by creating this competition of who has more "hits" and the best ones. This also allowed for others to be inspired by writings and try to out do it, which led the the growth of graffiti. It also is a way to creatively express yourself and also defines you as an individual.

Graffiti, hip hop, and break dancing are all intriguing forms of art. Graffiti is an urban way of communicating using art and pictures. It really ranges from a murals and pictures to just tagging and trying to put your name out

Hip hop is an urban way of expression through rhymes and lyrics. Best mc's have always battled for pride in the lime light. Many people put hip hop down for saying its not music and it takes not talent but to b honest it takes just as much talent as any other form of music. (and its definitely a way of expressing yourself not all rap is about violence, sex, and drugs)

Break dancing is actually really interesting it stems from a martial arts form that started in brazil because at the time they were not allowed to practice martial arts so they disguised it as a dance. Then people just took the fighting part out of it and added more to become break dancing.

The Art of Graffiti

In reading the two articles, especially the article that is specifically about Graffiti, my eyes were opened to the cultural and social significance of this movement.  In the sixties and seventies, it became so widespread in New York involving competition and the desire to gain fame.  Writers would try to "kill" subway cars and buildings by writing all over them and getting their names out there.  However, as time progressed and the "battle" against the New York government began, the style of these works changed and became more bold and more filled with purpose.  The writing became more motional and abstract, and people all over the city could interpret it in several ways.  I think this is extremely important because through language and writing, even in the form of graffiti, we can see the changes and evolution of a group of people, and this writing specifically is a means of communication between the artist/writer and the entire city of New York.  That, I think, is the most powerful part of this movement, and only after reading these articles was I able to realize that that is the reason for graffiti's prominence in today's society.

Graffiti: the arts

The first article talks a lot about how graffiti built communities within the boroughs in New York.  They created rivalries and other competition based on power and expression within the graffiti itself.  I also realized that outsiders of the city and urban areas tend not to understand the true meaning behind graffiti.  It is only once one enters the urban environment and is exposed to the people and mental thinking behind the meaning of graffiti that he/she appreciates it.  Otherwise, others just consider it vandalism.  I, however, think that graffiti does express inner emotions and such.  I think it utilizes the personal function of language, as well as imaginative.  It portrays a message and establishes a name for the artist.  However, I can also see where the idea of vandalism comes from - these forms of art are placed on other people's and the government's property.  It makes me consider whether or not this takes away from the purity and beauty of graffiti.  I am not sure, but I can definitely say that this one aspect does bothers me to an extent.

The second article also talks about how it is a form of art.  Graffiti allows for freedom and gives the artist a sense of personal expression and power. The artists want to influence their viewers.  They want to make a difference in the community; they want to be known.  I feel like the only difference between graffiti and the other art forms of hip-hop (like break dancing and rapping) is how it affects others in ways other than influentially and emotionally; graffiti can cost others a lot of money.  I feel that pure art must be expressed in ways that are not "physically" harmful and hurtful to others, but just beneficial.  This is the only problem with graffiti.

GRAFFITI

i think people's first impressions when they look at graffiti are inaccurate. Graffiti can fit into many of the 7 functions that we talked about in class: personal, interactional, imaginative, heuristic, and informative. Graffiti comes in all various languages and can be seen around the world, mainly in the larger cities. In NYC, it is painted all around subways and buildings which can be said to be vandalism; however, it does give people something to look at while driving and expresses people's character. 

Graffiti: art or vandalism?

I've always admired Renaissance art in particular and preferred that to any kind of modern art type of movements, and graffiti was definitely a new movement. I saw it as a kind of vandalism because, by nature, I always liked to keep things in pristine conditions, and it always bothered me when people didn't appreciate what they had. So when I thought about graffiti, I saw it as an unnecessary measure. Why would people "destroy" public property? Why would you need to draw on trains, walls, or any other places?

I never thought of graffiti as art or a form of self-expression until now. Graffiti movement really reflects upon the African American and pop culture, and because of the negative media exposure, it has been viewed as harmful. As MICO says, "graffiti" was a term coined by the New York Times and the paper, "denigrated the art because it was invented by youth of color." I think it's definitely true when MICO said if the rich and the well-known artists had come up with graffiti, it would've been seen as a revolutionary and an avant-garde artistic movement because we are less familiar with African American culture in this country. 

In any case, I look at graffiti with a new perspective even though I still think it's a kind of vandalism (because I like keeping things in pristine condition). Rather than dismissing something new because the media reported it as harmful, I think we need to get the inside info on what that new thing is about and try to see it in others' perspectives. 

Graffiti

Each artist describes the rush of energy, the high, he experiences from every sketch. These people are not only doing something illegal, but they are also getting their ideas out there for the public to see--whether the public wants to see it or not. It's a game to these artists to see who can hit the most trains, subways, and building walls. MICO describes it as a guerrilla war in the beginning because it's a mystery as to how/when the artists strike, where they can paint their signatures, lettering, and cartoon characters. If you look around, there's still a lot of graffiti today--on city buildings, on buses, on high way rocks. Up till now, I've always thought that graffiti was just the doodling of kids who thought it'd be cool to have their name written on a public surface...but I was ignorant. Now I realize from these two readings that it is so much more than that. These people are breaking barriers, sending out messages. It is art, and they dont even want the recognition for it because their real names are really never exposed.

I never really realized what graffiti really signified to the people who created it. To them, it seems like it is a way to communicate themselves and preserve themselves, much like the goal of a writer. For this reason, I believe many of these people could be considered artists. Many of their works are amazing and beautiful, and I really don't think it matters where their art is being displayed. It seems like they just want to be heard and recognized and known. The main intention here is not to vandalize. Tracy 168 says "we painted them to make them look beautiful." I think graffiti is greatly misunderstood and it is really an attempt by talented people to be heard and recognized. They only do these things on public property because many of them come from low social classes and it would be hard for them to be able to sucessfully reach a large amount of people with their art.

In the second piece, Dondi says "Every time yoe read a name you're reading a story." I thought this was very interesting and for some reason this made a lot of sense to me. These signatures are of real people, many of which have had great struggles and are trying to express their anger, resentment, and sadness through any medium accessible to them.

My Post about nothing

I for one liked the piece about graffiti. I feel that graffiti is not only a form of communication, but it is also an extraordinary form of art. A little tidbit, the person who designed President Obama's logo was recently arrested for a piece of graffiti artwork he was working on in Boston. Anyhow, graffiti still is, and always will be an important form of communication in the years to come.

The Stories Written On The Walls

Something that has always captivated me is this idea of what is deemed right, verse what is deemed wrong. We are given sets of rules by parents, teachers, bosses, religion, even husbands and wives; that THEY believe you should follow. Now, i do not believe this for every regulation, but for some, i believe it is right to do the wrong thing. Written in "Breakin'!", lines of the poem read, "We broke the rules/ We broke boundaries". Each of these Grafitti Artists do something they believe is right, even when the government says it is wrong. Yes, they are technically correct.. It is not their property, they shouldnt deface what isnt theirs. But walk by a street with plain brick and concrete sidewalks. Now walk through one filled with the color, the fresh smell of paint, read the stories written on the walls.
Many of my weekends are spent in Sheepsheadbay, Brooklyn. I walk around to the corner store and see a beautiful mosaic of Joshua and Renne, two youths who passed away in a fatal car crash. Every morning I am there, I am thankful for my life. It is a constant reminder of the effect art can have. It captured the happiness of these two kids and posted it on a the facade of a building. No one will forget their story.

I was actually interested in both of these articles, mostly because of the incredible controversy that seems to surround graffiti and the style of hip-hop in general. The first line in the "Breakin'!" article is really true: in order to appreciate the styles you really need to remove any bias pertaining to the definition of Hip-Hop. Before reading these articles, I often got annoyed when I saw the weird writing plastered across the side of a random building or train, assuming that it was some crazy teens trying to find something interesting to do at 2 A.M. But truthfully, it's so much more than that. Graffiti is an art form. In fact, since we've been talking about language, it fulfills a key function of language: the ability to express oneself. It is a form of letting out emotion, evoking emotions for the viewers and for many protesting. MICO, a successful graffiti artist, discusses in the NY Times Article that graffiti artists got pumped up and were able to write about protesting the Vietnam War when the vets came back. The art of graffiti is looked at as heroic and a way to make a mark of culture and thoughts that others may not have seen. I have concluded that this is actually one of the most impressive art forms and can definitely be considered art. The amount of time and commitment that many of the artists put into their work cannot be dismissed as simply vandalism or defacing a building. In fact, many of the graffiti artists that were interviewed said that the attempt to block their writing just allowed it to grow more and reach more surfaces than the initial ones.

I found these articles incredibly interesting and the ideas really should be shared with more people because they can help to eliminate the stereotypes that may be associated with them.

Hip-Hop

After reading the two packets, I thought that the use of graffiti as a method of communication was interesting.  How the art was used to convey the artists true self to the masses.  However, I felt that the reason for their creations was not impressive.  I feel that the original purpose was primarily to write his or her name in as many places as possible to potentially gain fame made graffiti less artistic and less important.  However, as time went on and it became more about creative expression, I felt that I was able to appreciate it more.  I was able to clearly see how graffiti is part of the Hip-Hop movement.

Motor Trend

The above title was the only "male-oriented" magazine I could find in my house, as Rolling Stone and Mad are pretty gender-neutral. Lots of racy ads and technical jargon about motoring and the newest, biggest, worst fuel economy-est were to be found inside, with the last 3 pages being the most entertaining. Whether it was Smiling Bob advertising Extenze or a borderline softcore photo, there was ALWAYS an ad or two for, and if I may be more frank here than Nick, "penile enhancement". It seems that male insecurity about their phallic size is quite widespread, and this has resulted in a growth of capitalism relating solely to the crotch. The equivalent of women's stress about their breasts would obviously have to be men's concern about their genitals.

Even the location of the ads, a magazine about big strong racing cars seems to suggest insecurity. It's always about the best lawn mower or the biggest grill. We're just Freudian-fueled consumerists.

Seventeen Magazine

Even without opening an issue of Seventeen magazine, I can tell that it is directed towards teenage girls from about age 13 to 17. On the cover of this month's issue, some of the subtitles include "350+ Hair Tips and Tricks," "Look Amazing: Style Secrets For Your Body" and "Your Best Legs Ever." These headlines are directed towards young teenage girls who look at themselves and want to change an aspect or two about them. Many of the articles give girls advice on how to better themselves physically by making them more beautiful, often by losing weight, eating healthier, or improving their style. The magazine strives to give girls more confidence in who they are by giving them the latest fashion or makeup tips. Also, it tries to help girls gain confidence with guys too by giving them tips on how to flirt, send them signals that you like them, or get them to notice you. However, contradictory to all these things, Seventeen also gives girls style tips that apply specifically to their body type, such as the type of jeans a girl with a fuller body should look for to appear slimmer. Additionally, every magazine has one or two articles about serious stories that occurred amongst ordinary girls. Some of the articles I have read involve girls who have been sexually assaulted by their teacher or girls who have run away from home to escape a broken and horrific life at home and turned to a life of drugs. These articles are meant to alert girls of dangerous situations and to prevent them from being in the same situation. Essentially, Seventeen's goal is to make girls feel comfortable in their own skin, confident with themselves, and aware of all of the dangers around them.

Men's and Women's Magazines

I got this magazine called "Prom Time" in the mail a couple days ago. On the cover is a girl in a prom dress, with her hair and make-up done. Inside the magazine there are quiz's about your perfect prom style, prom horoscopes, "Cheap, Chic and Colorful Accessories", and after prom details. It obviously is trying to sell to girls. There are also "Gossip Girl Looks". I went online and found the "Men's Health" magazine. It talks about building muscle, staying healthy, and of course, sex--all of which would interest men.

(insert interesting title here)

This weekend, i read an issue of Glamour magazine. They're selling to mostly women, as it is a women's magazine, but i found a few ads for men's products such as for various colognes. After looking through this magazine, i concluded that it is directed towards women who love guys, relationships, and sexual intercourse. Almost all of the front-page titles were about articles such as "Everything you want to know about guys" and "25 sex questions no one's ever asked men before". Other articles not featured were ones such as "Man-atomy 101", "Men, sex, and love", and "Breaking up: what's normal, what's not". The whole magazine is centered around men and how to make them happy, whether by "giving them a good time" or changing your hairstyle to make it more sexy. I got the impression that it would be directed towards older women who want to change their inward and outward appearances. In addition to the articles, there were many ads about hair, makeup, and acne medication. They are selling to older women who want to change because there is a lot of money in it. After reading about the "perfect hairstyle" to wear for a man, many women probably turn the page and see an ad about the hair products used. They then buy what they see, which is exactly what the magazine makers want. Glamour is more focused on women in their 20's-30's who have or want boyfriends, but cannot seem to get one.

Magazines

After searching through my house for about ten minutes, I came to the embarrassing conclusion that I have no style magazines. I really couldn't find any gender-specific magazines, but my dad told me that Forbes has close to 90 percent male readership, so I decided to look through that. As I flipped through the pages, I saw that nearly every other advertisement was for a car. Most of the others were either for planes or insurance. I guess that what I saw in these magazines geared towards men was different than what people saw in Sports Illustrated etc, but I think that's because my magazine was geared towards older, rather wealthy, businessmen instead of teenage sports fans.

the only magazines i really have at my house are a few different car magazines. They are male oriented magazines, probably because the bulk of car lovers are male. At the end of each magazine without fail there is always some sort of add for some male "pill" (no need to go into detail)

In Touch

I looked through in Touch magazine and on the cover was Angelina and Brad. I think that this attracts more girls attention than boys because of all the celebrity gossip and fashion. But, it also illustrates a lot about reality shows, like American Idol. There are also some sections that talk about men's fashion and interviews on Matt McConaughey... although i think that even those sections attract more to the girls.

Allure

While reading Allure magazine I noticed that most of its contents were meant for women in their late 20's to 30's. The magazine was focused on anti aging solutions, beauty tips, and fashion.  The articles mostly talked about the body and how to take good care of yourself and to remain looking young.

Over the weekend I was able to look through an issue of Cosmopolitan.  The magazine is clearly geared toward women, the cover shows the titles of articles such as "Just do this on Date #1 (and he's yours)".  However, the magazine uses a complete double standard.  It tries to send a message of being a confident woman, and how to feel better about yourself, but every article is about how to make the man happier in the relationship, and tips on how to achieve this.  In one section, the editors of Cosmo apologized for suggestions they had given in the past, like in an issue in 1970 they wrote 'Write his thank-you notes...Do needle-point while he watches...Take his pulse (even if you don't know how)...Pumice his calluses...Frolic in his chest hairs'.  But this really isn't any different from their suggestions now.  So while the marketing geared toward women has changed dramatically for many people in the country, and has changed to accept women as independent individuals, it is clear that for many people, like the readers of Cosmopolitan, that it hasn't changed at all.

All magazines are written with an intended audience in mind. Although I don't agree with this stereotype, the advertisements in sports illustrated are going to be geared towards men rather than women. I think we would all be a little confused if we came across a make up advertisement in sports illustrated and would be equally confused if we found an advertisement for something strictly male in seventeen magazine. It is very clear that almost every magazine is either targeting men or women, although some seem to be "gender neutral". Also, many womens magazines will show pictures of attractive men and mens magazines will feature pictures of women, for example the annual sports illustrated swimsuit issue. I agree with a previous post that suggested that sex sells. I think that these magazines are placing stereotypes on the kinds of readers that would be attracted by the subject matter of their magazines. I do not think magazines should be geared towards men or women, I think it just divides us. I think if a man wants to read a fashion magazine he should not be ridiculed, and the same should go for a woman who is interested in sports or body building. The fact that a man reading a fashion magazine will see advertisements for women and a woman reading a sports magazine will see advertisements geared towards men will force them to think that something is wrong with them and that they should not be interested in these subjects, reinforcing our gender stereotypes and definitions of a man and a woman.

False Advertisement

Over the weekend i went through countless "trash" magazines as my mother calls them. Leafing through them i've realized how much of an oxymoron they truely are. These magazines are used for women to get tips on how to look prettier. Isn't that an insult already? Use this? If your eyes are baggy you clearly need it. If you have a bad sex life, you might as well do this. Cause you basically suck. Support on "how to make yourself all you can be". Women look at these pictures and see perfection. Airbrushed faces, hot bodies, delicious man candy. Look around you ladies. No ones this perfect.
Magazines are utopian false hopes. LIES. we look to envy these rediculous pictures. No one looks like that. They need to stop the False Advertisement.

magazines

I looked at Elle, and even in the ads its obvious its geared toward women. Almost all of them are fashion ads: Louis Vitton, Marc Jacobs, Fendi, etc. I have doubts such ads would show up in sports illustrated.

Glamour

With a title like Glamour, it is pretty clear who this magazine is marketed towards. Just on the cover, hot pink writing predominates. Teenage girls and young adult women would be drawn into headlines like "10 extra pretty beauty tricks anyone can do". The magazine is comprised of literally two types of adds: makeup and women's fashion. There are also plenty of female celebrities with their boyfriends, and updates on their relationship status. Glamour is targeted to a female consumer for pure entertainment and enjoyment.

Sex Sells

Cosmopolitan is mostly selling sex.  The word is usually bolded on the cover of the magazine to draw attention and ultimately to get a sale.  The magazine goes into great details on this topic, but also discusses fashion and health issues.  Even though the magazine is geared towards women i think that some men read it to get into the women's psyche.  They do even have a "cosmo for your guy" section.  

I looked up cosmo online today to see if they had a similar demographic online and whether they said the same things in the magazines online. It's funny because the first thing that you open to are the headers of the sections: Sex&Love, Style&Beauty, Hot Guys, Celeb Style, etc. The site is written in bright pink and yellow and immediately shows pictures of couples and guys. It seems so obviously targeted toward girls our age and young women that it's ridiculous ! Everything about it is meant to draw teenagers in, even the language they use is supposed to sound relaxed so that a teenager reading it will feel comfortable, like talking to a best friend.

Seventeen Magazine

I was skimming through Seventeen this morning and noticed how much it really was marketed towards teenage girls.  This is made obvious by the pictures and articles throughout the magazine.  First off, the cover of Seventeen is always a picture of some celebrity, often actresses or women singers, however sometimes it is some picture of an attractive male.  Furthermore, the titles of some of the headline articles that appear on the cover will include things like, "How to Get Clear Skin,"  or "20 Tips to Be Beautiful," or some kind of hygiene article.  Also, there are sometimes titles that include fashion tips and makeup guides.  All these components are geared towards teenage girls, not boys.  Seventeen magazine and a lot of other teenage magazines for girls will primarily base their articles around fashion, design, beauty, and body - mainly appearance articles.  However, sometimes serious articles will include a story about an eating disorder, etc.  These topics are normally not predominant in teenage boys; this is why Seventeen is obviously marketed for young women.  

I'm not a big fan of the book. From what I understand, I think that Stephen's epiphany was more or less a gradual process. I think that the encounter with his dean had Stephen reconsidering some of his beliefs and his encounter with Temple finalized them in a way. His reasoning when debating with his friends becomes entirely based on art instead of religion as one would have assumed. I think this is an important transition. In order to truly understand something or to be able to say that you have examined all aspects of it, you need to think in a more artistic way. This gives you an entirely different perspective on things, just like Stephen displays. I think this will really make a difference in his judgement and beliefs later on in his life.

Stephen's Epihaneezy

I think the underlying sexism in the Dedalus household is quite apparent throughout the book, but only really begins to manifest itself through the father's fornications with the college women. Mr. Dedalus seems to be acting out his disappointment in Stephen's depression by being so immature. Stephen is slightly disgusted by this realization and a bit shamed, but his real epiphany is when he decides to place a higher faith in art rather than religion. After all of the energy he put into worship and prayer he abandons it for an entirely new form of spiritual expression. I got the impression that Joyce was influenced by existentialism because of the way he describes the whole art "versus" religion conflict.

Epiphany anyone?

As everyone else said, Stephen makes a transition from religion to art. He has a realization, possibly sometime during his vision of the "angel", that religion and God was not what he really wanted to follow. He goes to school and talks about art and aesthetics with the dean, as opposed to talking about religion or some school-related topic. He also turns away from Jesus, saying that he is just an icon and he wants nothing to do with him.
I also disagree with whoever said this was the worst book ever. sure, it was hard to read, but i've read worse books (and besides, we didn't even have to read all of this one!).

stephen

i kinda agree with stephens dad, stephen is like a bum hes a weird o, and if eel he is unstable throughout the novel. In todays world i would classify stephen as depressed perhaps. he is also horrific with women. but i will give him this through out the novel he is very creative in his own way and very independent, for example when stephen is watching the birds then thinks of their species and then throws in how man has always tried to fly and finally uses lines from yeats poem, i would never look at a situation like that bu t it was kinda cool and wierd how he did. i believe the epiph is when he desides to go with art over religion.

and to add one more thing...

and to add one more thing, i kind of think that stephen's epiphany of choosing art over religion is kind of bogus because in my eyes i see art throughout religion. Maybe i'm not understanding the book that much but i don't get why he thinks that he needs to choose between the 2 and why he can't just believe in art and religion..

I agree with nick about the difference in language but in one sense i think that stephen does this because he wants to show his educated status and somehow seem more knowledgable than the dean. I also think it is really interesting how stephen's writing comes to him from the women he has met/loved. He seems to be most happy when he writes after he has seen the "beauty" of women.

Something i noticed

Stephen bumps into the dean while walking to the physics hall and starts speaking to him for a while about fire. Later on in the conversation he starts speaking about more artistic stuff and aesthetics and he uses the word tundish. Tundish is a slightly awkward word i think and it seems to derive from irish. which i believe shows the clash between the english (dean) and the irish (stephen)

known vs. unknown?

Because most people have already described Stephen's epiphany as a choice between art and religion, I am going to elaborate more on this decision.  I too believe that Stephen's epiphany is a decision between art and religion.  Although I barely understand exactly what is going on in this novel, I would like to comment how art and religion are two completely separate things.  I think that art and religion are on separate sides of the spectrum of what is known and what is unknown.  As humans, we have a difficulty in deciding what it is that we should believe and what is the truth, or reality.  For Stephen, he faces this decision with the choice between art and religion.  Art is the known, where religion is the unknown.  For Stephen, art and words are his expression of human emotions and truth.  They are there for everyone to see, in hard-print.  Religion, on the other hand, is known as a faith that cannot be seen or touched, solely felt.  For many, religion is a hard concept to grasp because of its abstractness.  However, art is universal.  Although different pieces mean and stand for different feelings for every individual, it is universal that everybody can feel a particular way when observing art.  Art is a means of expression, as is religion; however, it is a tangible one.

The Verdict

First off, this book was one of the worst books that I've ever read. Anyway, I also believe the epiphany was around the time when Stephen chose art over religion. I believe that even though this was the end of the book, it was a major turning point in Stephen's life.

Struggle

i didnt really enjoy this book.  i don't know why.  i felt it was difficult to read and too wordy.  how many stories of struggling with religion and family does one need to read or hear?  I did enjoy when stephen began writing as if he was keeping a diary beginning on page 224, even if it was only for a few pages.  I enjoyed Cranly's advice when Stephen broached the subject of going to church for easter because his mom wanted him to.  Cranly tells Stephen that there is no love like a mother's love for their child.  I agree with that but on the other hand how much do you change who you are to please other people?  Is it good that Stephen wants to stand his ground and not appease his mother?  I struggle with which option is better, because they both have consequences.

The Epiphany

Like what others have said, I believe that Stephan's epiphany is about his choosing art over religion. On page 149 Stephen basically professes his love of words. On page 151 Joyce uses stream of consciousness to show Stephens thoughts: "[Art] was the call of life to his soul not the dull gross voice of the world of duties and despair, not the inhuman voice that had called him to the pale service of the altar." However, I think that part of Stephens epiphany is also the idea of liberation through art. He mentions flying and trembling because of his excitement. These may have been his feelings because of the fact that he was having the epiphany, and because of it he felt liberated, but I think that it's also because art provides such an amazing experience for him. Any opinions?

Epiphany

So far I agree with what everyone has said.  I think that Stephen's rejection of religion and choice of art and its meaning beyond the physical world is an extremely important realization.  However, I think that the most important realization of the chapter is that Stephen has to find his own voice and think his own thoughts, which is part of what being an artist is all about.  "Why was he gazing upwards from the steps of the porch, hearing their shill twofold cry, watching their flight?  For an augury of good or evil?...then there flew hither and thither shapeless thoughts from Swedenborg on the correspondence of birds to things of the intellect and of how the creatures of the air have their knowledge and know their times and reasons because they, unlike man, are in the order of their life and have not perverted that order by reason.  And for ages men have gazed upward as he was gazing at birds in flight...A sense of fear of the unknown moved in the heart of his weariness, a fear of symbols and portents..." (202).  While thinking about the birds, Stephen is realizing that he must find the higher order that he belongs to and that he must reach his full potential and flight.  Further events cement this mentality such as Stephen's conversation with Cranly in which he tells his friend that he is strongly considering abandoning university, family, and friends for a more isolated life style in order to pursue his artistic desires.  I think that the final transitional step in Stephen finding his own voice is the chapter's end in Stephen's journal entries, which are his voice directly, and something we have not seen yet in the book.  At the very end of the book, Stephen has a vision which is yet another huge part of his epiphany about his higher order: "And the voices say with them: We are your kinsmen.  And the air is thick with their company as they call to me, their kinsman, making ready to go, shaking the wings of the exultant and terrible youth" (228).  These voices are calling to him to join them in another world, making Stephen realize that that is where he belongs.

Stephen's Epiphany

Although I do agree with Kathryn in that Stephen appears to have many realizations during the last chapter of this novel, I think the main epiphany Stephen has is to chose art over religion. He goes on a rant about how the soul "has a slow and dark birth, more mysterious than the birth of the body" (182). He believes that the soul is unable to fly completely due to different "nets" than get in its way, such as language, nationality, and religion, all of which Stephen wants to overcome and conquer. He realizes that he can truly express himself through interpretation of art, therefore he chooses art over religion. Also, in a conversation with Cranly towards the end of the chapter, Stephen admits that he "tried to love God"by "tr[ying] to unite [his] will with the will of God instant by instant" (217) but he eventually failed and gave up. Also, in a way, Stephen also finds his independence and realizes he does not need to rely on anyone but himself. He is no longer afraid to "make a mistake, even a great mistake, a lifelong mistake and perhaps as long as eternity too" (223). He is willing to take the risk of having no one by his side, standing alone, following his own beliefs and morals. Essentially, by abandoning his religion for art and a life of independence, Stephen is happy.

I thought the main epihphany began around page 195 when Stephen describes a moment of sudden knowledge. The novel describes that Stephen's "mind was waking slowly to a tremulous morning knowledge, a morning inspiration." It says that his soul is waking. It describes how verses were passing from his mind to his lipsand how "he felt the rhythmic movement of a villanelle pass through him." At this moment, it seemed to me like everything suddenly became clear and he was able to capture the perfect words to compose his poem. I agree that part of the epiphany seems to be that Stephen decides to give up his devout religious beliefs. He says "I will not serve that in which i no longer believe." He goes on to say "I will try to express myself in some mode of life or art as freely as I can and as wholly as I can, using for my defence the only arms I allow myself to use, silence, exile and cunning." Basically I thought his epiphany is that he chooses to pursue art over religion. Stephen is choosing to dedicate his life to art. He realized he is not afraid to be alone in order to pursue his artistic ambitions.

Losing My Religion :)

Ok, so it feels like there's a lot to comment on regarding this past reading, because truthfully it seems like Stephen has epiphanies about a lot of different aspects in his life. To sum it all up, it seems that Stephen has finally chosen to abandon his religion (after his talk with Cranly and his last few journal entries.) In the very beginning of Chapter 5, I noticed that he seems completely disinterested with school: he makes comments about his boring physics lectures and the kids that he generally dislikes. Stephen seems to become enthralled in much more phylosophical topics, especially those regarding famous philosophers such as Aquinas and Aristotle. Stephen develops insightful theories about beauty and aesthetics, and is much more interested in carrying on about the "deeper" life questions instead things like politics and money. One scene that I found particularly interesting was when Cranly and Macann were trying to persuade Stephen to sign a political petition. The dialogue seemed to have the same kind of manner as the talking at the Christmas dinner table in Stephen's childhood. At the student hall, they are talking about the tsar and Marxism, and it seems incredibly confusing. As we talked before, this may be intentional- a way of showing that Stephen is much less interested in politics or problems in other countries and much more interested in his own personal freedom and independence. I'll finsh this REALLY long post with a quote that I thought definitely reflects Stephen's enlightenment.
"A phrase of Cornelius Agrippa flew through his mind...on the correspondence of birds to things of the intellect and of how the creatures of the air have their knowldge and know their times and seasons because they, unlike man, are in the order of their life and have not perverted that order by reason" (202.)
Any other comments or thoughts?

Waiting for the Epiphany!

Who has comments on the reading we did in class?

Looking Up Some Other Sacred Music

Although I wasn't in class to listen to the previously discussed songs, I looked up some extra sacred music on youtube. Listening to hundreds of christian songs sounded boring and kind of uninteresting, since I feel like a lot of times they're pretty distinguishable (I saw from past posts that people were most able to identify the christian songs.) So, I decided to try something a little different. There was kind of a cool link to tibetan monks and I thought I'd check it out. I was really expecting something kind of peaceful and relaxing: meditation is something that I automatically associate with buddhism, but this particular song kind of gave me the creeps. As one of the "youtubers" commented, it really sounds like it could fit perfectly into the soundtrack of a horror movie. I don't know if that's exactly what I'd want to listen to as I thought about prayer or God(s). In general, it weirds me out to hear people who can harmonize with themselves- it's some kind of weird vocal chords thing- but the tone and the melody of the music is specifically eerie. If anyone is interested, there seem to be a ton of other monk chants on youtube, but I'm warning you !

i totally think the first two were christian. the harmonies were AMAZING though. the last couple reminded me of Mulan i don't know about anybody else but i started humming the songs from that movie when i got out of class haha but no seriously, the last two were more instrumental. i think that the first ones you could tell were more religious and had words so you could get the message that they were trying to convery i think that it was more effective. the last two sounded a bet more fun and upbeat more spiritual than religious i guess. which tends to make sense in the context of the islam and buddhist religions because they do not believe in a specific icon its more nirvana-y and spiritual beliefs, which is kinda cool.

Religious Songs

Like what everyone else thought, I agree that "If Ye Love Me" and "Sancte" were Christian songs. Both songs sounded like a choir was singing them, because of the many voices, and high and low pitch. I though that "Ang klu" had an Asian feel, because of the bells and drums, so it was probably from the Hindu religion. The last song was very strange but also interesting. It sounded like elephants, and I was not exactly sure what religion it was from. I agree with other people that it sounded African. The last two were much harder to figure out the religion than the first two.

Friday's Religious Songs

The lyrics of the first song definitely made it seem Christian to me. There was a lot of repetition, and I remember hearing "keep my commandments" at least once. I recognized a couple Latin words in the second song, which led me to think that it too was Christian music. I remember hearing drums in the third song, and the melody of the piece reminded me of something that was East Asian, or more specifically Chinese. It reminded me of the kind of music I hear in Chinese restaurants, with bold drum music. This made me think that the song was Buddhist. The final song, Raku, had a lot of different sounds in it. This was was definitely the hardest to identify, especially considering that I don't often listen to religious music of any kind, but maybe this song is associated with Hinduism. The third song seemed to be my favorite; it was more upbeat and fast-paced than the others.

Religious Beats

I thought the first two songs were very peaceful and soothing and relaxing religious music is great. I respect the other Hindu songs, but i thought they were crazy and it seemed just like a lot of madness, but i def have a respect for that music.

Disappointed in the music

I wasn't that into any of the songs.  Usually religious music is supposed to relax the listener but I did not find this at all with Ang Klung.  I also found Raku irritating because of the bagpipe and elephant like sounds.  I was really excited to listen to religious music but these tunes somewhat disappointed me.

The first two songs sound european in decent making me think that they are christian songs. The 3rd song has many sounds that are usually coupled with asian music so i believe it is Buddhist. the 4th one i have no clue if it is either islamic or hindu.

Music

Here's the deal, the first song was by far the most depressing song I've heard in quite a while. Now that's over with, I liked the Hindu songs the best. I thought that they were upbeat, and I liked the faster pace compared to the first song. However, none the less all three of songs were decent.

Music & religion

I think the first two songs were both Christian songs. They sounded very echo-y, and had a chorus of voices that just made me think of church music. The third song, "Ang Klung", i thought sounded like a Buddhist religious song, and that it was very spiritual, but a different kind of spiritual from the first two songs. The first two songs, "If ye love me" and "Sancte", had rounds of spirited singing, while "Ang Klung" had no words. "Raku" seemed as if it were purposely off-key, and sounded animalistic, which is why i think it might be a Hindu song. They have a God with the head of an elephant, and they say the snake is a symbol of fertility. They also think that all their Gods have an incarnation on earth, so maybe it was meant to sound like the disharmonious sounds of the earth?

Religious Music

The first two songs we listened to, "If Ye Love Me" and "Sancte Day", seemed to be Christian songs to me.  They both were constructed of harmonies that seemed to have four parts.  The first song, "If Ye Love Me", sounded as if it was in a round.  The songs had a powerful presence and they like they could have been heard in a church.  The third song, "Angklung" sounded to me like it was from Asia, especially because of the numerous bells and drums which dominated the song.  However, I could not make a connection between the song to a specific religion.  This was the same case for the song "Raku".  The music composed of squeaking noises sounded as if it was from the East, but I was unable to identify a religion that it would belong to.

Music in Religion

The four different songs we listened to in class on Friday each had their own different styles and moods.  The first two pieces were very similar though.  "If Ye Loved Me" and "Sancte Deus" seemed to be Christian songs.  They were both mainly composed of choir singing and distinct melodies.  "If Ye Loved Me" was very soothing, peaceful, and calm.  It sounded like all men were singing, but I'm not too sure.  "Sancte Days" had many more voices singing the different melodies.   Because both these pieces used words and melodies to compose a song, they seemed to be very Western.  The voices made the music, not instruments.  This was the opposite for the last two songs, "Angklung" and "Raku".  "Angklung" had many bells, flutes, and instruments.  It sounded like it was  a piece from the East, more oriental, maybe some Islamic religion.  It was more upbeat and it seemed to be music for some sort of celebration or dance.  It had kind of a happy feeling.  "Raku" was similar in that it was composed of all instrument sounds.  It contained flutes and drums, percussion.  This piece did not sound very pleasant though.  It was somewhat hurtful to the ears and I have no idea what it could possibly be used for.  Maybe a ritual? The last two songs were definitely from an Eastern religion as supposed to the first two Christian songs.  Although all these songs had different sounds, they each have a purpose in their religion.

Religious Music

I think that, as everyone has already said, the songs "If Ye Love Me" and "Sancte" are Christian songs.  They are both a cappella with several voices, strong harmonies with a prevailing melody, and a chorale-like atmosphere.  These qualities are very much characteristic of Christian music, and another give-away, at least from what I heard, is that the lyrics are in English for "If Ye Love Me," a predominant language in Christianity (look at the title of the first song).  The lyrics of "Sancte" were probably in Latin, but I am not positive.  I also thought it was interesting how in "Sancte," almost the entire song is sung in a minor key, but then right at the very end on the last note, the singers harmonize in a major key, which could convey a positive feeling such as hope.  The song "Angklung" is probably of Hindu origin because an Angklung is an Asian percussion instrument that, to me, sounds similar to a xylophone.  The predominant instrument in this piece is a percussion instrument, the Angklung, in addition to about two or three singing voices.  During this piece, the tempo changes quite a bit.  First, it starts out pretty slow, then speeds up drastically, and then slows down again, which I think adds to the interest and unpredictability of the piece.  Finally, I am not sure about the origin of the song "Raku," but it is definitely not Christian.  It is entirely instrumental with some unusual wind and percussion instruments (the percussion instrument is extremely high-pitched), as well as a bagpipe.  These instruments are combined in an interesting way in this song.  I think that the song is really cool to listen to because it is so unusual.

Sacred Songs

I thought the first two songs, "If Ye Love Me," and "Sancte" were both Christian because of the intense harmonization and choir-like feel. In both pieces the voices moved together in that they softened in the same places and got louder in the same places. It was like these multiple people were trying to get the same message across which was cool. I'm no gonna try to judge where they're both from so I'll go with Europe as a general area...
The third song, "Ang Klung," I thought had a very asian feel. The instruments seemed to be predominantly percussion, with the xylaphone and bells. I'm gonna say it was Buddhist music because of where I think it's from.
The last song, "Raku" sounds very animalistic. I agree with a lot of the posts that there was a part that sounded a lot like an elephant. Thus, I think it either hails from either Africa or Southeast Asia. I think it is Buddhist just judging by location, but I also strongly agree with the idea that it's Hindu because of the natural feel.

Sacred Music

The first two songs definitely resembled Christian music because of the harmony. I could picture an all male choir for the first song, If Ye Love Me, singing at different pitches and rates but together creating a soft toned piece. The second song, Sante Deuse, immediately struck me as being Christian because of the title. But I could also recognize Christian aspects of music throughout the song--the harmony and the moments when the voices would get loud and soft. It was very celebrational. The last two songs weren't as easy, but I came to conclude that the third song, Angklung, was Islamic. There were many instruments, it was rhythmic, and there were no words. And it almost sounded like an asian melody at some points in the song. Because the last song, Raku, seemed to incorporate long notes that sounded off key, and a lot like animal noises, I assumed that it was Hindu. From what I know, Hinduism seems to value nature so its music would probably include this aspect.

Religious Songs

1) I thought that the song "If ye love me" was Christian. There seemed to be maybe four or five people singing, starying slightly from the main harmony sometimes. The voices worked well together to compose the feeling and atmosphere of the entire piece. No singer seemed to outshine anyone else.
2) I thought that "Sancte Deuse" was also Christian. I thought this mainly because of the same reasons. It seemed like all of the individuals singing were trying to aid the composition. The focus seemed to be more on a community or group of people rather than individual talent or glory.
3) I thought "Ang Klu" was very different from the other compositions. it had no vocals, only instruments. I thought I recognized a variety of wind instruments. It generally seemed happier and much more lively and in many ways more enjoyable for me. I would guess this piece to be Hindu because I thought it embodied some of the religion's beliefs.
4) I thought that "Raku" was interesting and strange. It seemed like the type of music someone may do an interpretive dance to. It seemed random and unpredictable. The feeling of the song can't be summarized generally because the song seemed to be composed of many stages. I agree with other people that this song sounds African and gives off a strong sense of community.

Religious Music

In my opinion, i think that If Ye Love Me and Sancte Deus are both Christian melodies.  There are various people singing, forming a choir. A harmony is formed with sopranos and altos. A sense of unity and community is produced within these two songs because the singers are working together, with no instruments, to create a piece of music. For the third song, Ang Klu, i thought it was some type of Islamic song because of the title and all the various instruments played. It is an upbeat song, with no singing, solely instruments. I agree with Jen with the piece of Raku. I think that it sounds African with a heavy drummer and high pitched instruments (sounded like a harmonica?). To me, i can see this song being played by a tribe. I think that all these songs are similar because they all have a sense of community in them, whether its for a celebration or for education purposes. 

4 different religious songs

1. I think that "If Ye Love Me" is a Christian song because of the title and also the fact that the voices sound like a choir, which are often found in churches. The voices blend well together and the harmonies help balance out the piece so that no one part is stronger than the others. The music is also very elegant and flowing, as church music often is.

2. I think the second piece, "Sancte Deuse," is also Christian due to the reasons listed above. Also, the piece appears to be mournful and the parts are very well divided into four distinct melodies.

3. I think the third piece, "Ankhung," (I don't know if I spelled that right) is a Buddhist piece. Although there are no vocals, the different types of instruments are very recognizable including the xylophone, bells, flutes, etc. This piece is much more lively and energetic, along with upbeat in happy, which contrasts the two previous works.

4. I think that the song "Raku" sounds African. Unlike all of the previous pieces, this song has many surprises and is completely unpredictable. I like the way the piece starts out with one instrument playing on its own, and then many more are added. Additionally, it does not have distinguishable melodies or harmonies. Towards the end, the instruments created a sound similar to one that an elephant makes, which therefore made me believe it was an African song.

Music and Religion

For me, differentiating between Hindu and Muslim music is more difficult than spotting a Christian song. "If Ye Love Me" and "Sante Deus" stuck out to me as Christian. It seemed like a choir was singing, which is common in the christian religion. I could really feel the sense of community in the song, because the voices were working together, making melodies and such (i'm not an expert on musical terms as you can probably tell). Next, I thought Ang Klu was Islamic music. It seemed like this would be played during prayer, in contrast to Raku which was more upbeat. I thought that the sounds in Raku highlighted the natural world, like nature, which to me meant Hinduism.

Finding Your Purpose

What is the purpose of religion? Is it to live your life in a certain manor, to please an enlightened power? Is it about the after life? Or "Karma, where the liberation account of each of us is credited or debited depending on our actions"(49)? I feel that religion, when not followed correctly, solely instills a fear upon us. Our Atman. Our soul. Whatever you'd like to call it. Its being bound by this random talk.
I see no difference between the Christians. The Muslims. The Hindus. As different as they may seem. They are not.
What is their purpose?
L-O-V-E.
I don't believe in religion. But i do believe in its purpose. I guess you can say I am religious to that. I live by it daily, doing what I love, what makes me happy.
Pi discusses the Christian religion. And says something along the lines of being able to be lost or saved in a few brief moments.
Religion is a safety. You can be save by anything or anyone. It's a choice to follow something you have no proof of. Because if it was never seen nor hear in the first place, how can you lose it?
Religion will go on forever, until all of humanity can realize they can save themselves.

Trouble with three religions

Through many of the chapters pi has been struggling with his religious beliefs. First there was a feud between his three religious leaders, each one declaring that he follows a different religions. Not much is solved and for the most part the matter is left alone. But after that he starts getting angry with those who do not follow or worship god. Then many temples, mosques, and churches ban him for his three religions and make him find god on his own. Which brings up the question does it matter how you find or worship god or is it that you just do it anyway you can?

confusing overview ch.22-35

1. chapter 22- with religions come better stories (page 64) agnostic vs. religion

2. perhaps the fact that Pi's father is so not into religion helped push Pi into looking for greater meaning (chapter 23); the religions are all fighting against each other.  why cant they just be and let live? all we need is a beatles song so all these religious men can chill out.  it is a very sweet and tender idea that all Piscine wants to do is love g-d.

3. are mr. and mr. kumar two seperate people? and if Piscine is such good friends with either of them how is he too plain to be overlooked? he is a person isn't he? (page 80)

4. LOVE the way he ends chapter 35 by saying"Things didn't turn out the way they were supposed to...You must take life the way it comes at you and make the best of it" (91)

Mixing Religions?

As we've talked about before in class, Pi is definitely having a huge identity crisis. But from the reading over the weekend (chapters 21-35) I've realized that his crisis has taken a new turn. One of the main questions that came up to me as I was reading relates to chapter 26. Can you really choose your own religion and pick which rules best apply to your views? Pi states that he wants to "pray to Allah, but be a Christian." In my personal opinion, I think that it is difficult to choose from multiple different religions because of their different regulations, guidelines and general values and beliefs. At the same time, maybe Pi can be a generally more enlightened person if he incorporates the values of multiple different religions. Any other thoughts?

After it has been revealed that Pi is following three different religions, in chapter 26 he has a discussion with both is mother and father. While talking with his mother about how he should only follow one of these religions, he states "If there's only one nation in the sky, shouldn't all passports be valid for it?" This quote stuck with me because it made a lot of sense. I think this was a very valid point and explains why he is doing something so unconventional. He also quotes Gandhi by saying "All religions are true." Also, he says he "just wants to love God." Does Pi really just want to love God or is something else going on? Does he have some other motivation for practicing all of these religions? Is it possible to be faithful to three religions at once? Also, after the three religions men confront eachother, each scold Pi when he enters their house of worship, should this be? Should Pi be allowed to practice these three religions at once? Should he be condemned, or has he done anything wrong?

This weekend's reading further explained Pi's search for multiple religions. On page 69, the imam, priest, and pandit are all fighting. They say he "must choose". The fact that these 3 religious figures are all fighting is pretty ironic. Pi chooses to participate in these religions because he is looking for something unexplainable. It goes along with the fact that he changed his name: he wants to be accepted. Each religion offers a little something more to him. Why do these religious figures have a hard time accepting his multiple faiths? Pi's approach is unconventional, but doesn't he justify his reasoning pretty well?

A few random quotes and thoughts

A lot happens in chapter 17. At the beginning Pi says "I owe to hinduism the original landscape of my religious imagination....i was fourteen years old-and a well content hindu" Basically Pi starts off the chapter by saying how he was born a Hindu and he is happy with it but later he and his family go on vacation where he sees a mosque (muslim), a temple (hindu), and a Church (christian), After Pi tells us about these places that are set on three different hills next to each other he says "on our fourth day in Munnar, as the afternoon was coming to an end, I stood on the hill to the left." (where the church was). This quote shows the start of Pi's possible dynamic views of god and religion. Later in the chapter he tries to understand religion and compare it to Hinduism (what is familiar to him). This does strike up some confusion but at the end he says "I enter the church, without fear this time, for it was now my house too. I offered prayers to Christ, who is alive. Then i raced down the hill on the left and raced up the hill on the right-to offer thanks to Lord Krishna for having put Jesus of Nazareth, whose humanity i found so compelling, in my way" Pi has now fully accepted Christianity to his life.

Also when Pi is learning about Christianity he talks about the zoo again which makes another comparison between the zoo and religion. 

"Humanity sins but it's God's Son who pays the price? I tired to imagine Father saying to me, "Piscine, a lion slipped into the llama pen today and killed two llamas. Yesterday another one killed a black buck. Last week two of them ate the camel. The week before it was painted storks and grey herons. and who;s to say for sure who snacked on our golden agouti? The situation has become intolerable. Something must be done. I have decided that the only way the lion can atone for their sins is if I feed you to them" 

What i find interesting about this novel is that this Pi is just a typical child. He is just like every other student that attends Millburn High. He is majorly religiously orientated, as some are in MHS, and he has the same concerns and memories. I mean what i think is really cool is the fact that he goes off on these tangents that seem COMPLETELY RANDOM but somehow they relate back to his religious views. For example, the discussion we had in class today about Pi's father's lesson. I was in awe because a tiger eating a goar, while i was reading it, seemed a little bit far fetched on his father's part. But it all comes full circle. So my question is why? Why is Pi trying to make us think about all of the things going on in his life, like tiger eating goats? Why is he so religious, is it someone in his family pushing him or is it his own personal drive, or neither? Why does he have that drive in him to be different? When he changes his name he has time for infinite possibilities for WHAT though? I just don't see the point if youre constantly trying to be different and find your own why youre whole life... won't life just, in turn, pass you by?

During the reading tonight, the concept of love and death was brought up specifically in chapter 17. Pi asked, "Why would G-D wish that upon himself?" "Why not leave death to mortals?" "Why make dirty what is beautiful, spoil what is perfect?" Father Martin goes on to reply by simply saying "Love." Now, what is love? No, I'm talking about A Night at the Roxbury. Is love a feeling? Or is love an emotion? I for one find love to be a combination of both feeling and emotion, a feemotion if you will. Love is not a precalculated, preconceived idea, instead it is an unconscious, "thing" that one person shows towards another person.