Slaughterhouse Five

After reading Kurt Vonnegut's antiwar novel, Slaughterhouse Five's protagonist, I applied Billy Pilgrim to my Big Q. Billy is an interested character to apply to this because he has no desire to be alive. All throughout the novel, he is degraded, dejected, and humiliated by those around him. In every career he takes, and even among his family, he is deprived of respect. He is constantly facing adversity, but he enters in to situations of adversity already unwilling to continue. Instead of being struck down by failure, he is already on the bottom. His encounters with the people and planet of  Tralfamadore and what he has witnessed in the war have contributed to his unwillingness to try. Earning respect and accomplishment-- be it in the ranks of war or among his family or in the professional field-- is meaningless because all will share the same death. Death is inevitable and inescapable and free will is a myth. Why try? Billy is merely a "listless plaything of enormous forces," he always has been and he always will be. He recognizes that among the things he cannot change are "the past, the present, and the future." In this case, in the face of adversity and failure, Billy does not succumb nor arise from it a better person. He remains belly up, subdued to the greater forces of fate, death, and time. 

Beloved

I'm going to be completely honest, I hated reading Toni Morrison's novel Beloved. I know it's a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in Literature, but it was a difficult and graphic read. However, regardless of my feelings towards the novel, my BQ can still be applied to it. In the case of the characters in Beloved, when faced with adversity, their potential-- more specifically their identity-- suffers. While speaking of her book, Morrison is quoted to have said, "This is not a book about slavery," yet the emotional, physical, and mental toll that slavery takes is a common theme throughout.
Though they are not in physical bondage to each other, Sethe, Denver and Beloved are are emotionally-- even spiritually-- bound to each other. The fragmented nature of each of the three monologues in Part II is representative of each character's fragmented, incoherent identity. The voices mingle, making it difficult to attribute each phrase to its speaker.I take that as an way of Morrison showing Sethe, Beloved, and Denver have conflated and confused their identities so far beyond recognition, that it is even hard to distinguish who's memories are whose. Denver, for example, doesn't even own her own identity; even her name is someone else's and though Sethe preserved the freedom/identity of Beloved, she has stifled that of Denver's in doing so. Sethe cannot cut the psychological umbilical cord that attaches her to Beloved, nor can Beloved cut it either.

It is not just Sethe, Denver, and Beloved who suffer, however. Every character's potential/identity is a vicitim of the adversity of the novel.Where slavery exists, everyone suffers a loss of humanity and compassion-- not only the identities of its black victims but also those of the whites who perpetrate it. Paul D has shut off himself off from emotion and buried his feelings into the "rusted tobacco tin" of his heart, Baby Suggs no longer felt freedom was worth anything, Halle went mad, even the Garner's benevolence and condescension illustrates the loss of compassion.

In regards to Beloved the answer to my BQ is when faced with adversity, namely the institution of slavery, an individual's potential/identity is hindered and as a result is left in a cycle of fragmentation, because according to Sethe, "nothing ever dies." 

The Stranger

A Little reminder of my big question: Does facing adversity/failure strengthen or hinder ones potential?

Camus' novel, "The Stranger," is another book where the answer to my Big Question does not follow the previous trends of the works of literature we read first semester. The protagonist of the novel holds similar traits to that of Raskolnikov from "Crime & Punishment." He is alienated from society like Raskolnikov, but unlike him Meursault holds a "gentle indifference" to the world, and is emotionally detached-- a passive observer who never passes judgement on others. Because of such characteristics, when Meursault is faced with the death of his mother and then is tried and convicted of murder, his potential is neither strengthened nor hindered-- it just is. He remarks upon the physical state of things and never denies he is guilty of murder, but it also has little emotional effect on him. Typically in the other works we read, such series of events would be the spark in starting a process that leads to either self- betterment or to self destruction. Meursault's gentle indifference, and his embodiment of Camus' Philosophy of the Absurd, are key components in making him one of the few protagonist that responds with a neutral answer to my big question.  

Crime & Punishment

Dotevsky's novel Crime & Punishment is another work of literature my big question can be applied to. Raskolnikov does not face failure so much as he faces adversity. Throughout the entire novel he is at war with himself and stuck between action and inaction. After killing an old pawnbroker and her sister, Raskolnikov's internal struggle magnifies and he grows paranoid. Once he is caught, the adversity is also magnified. Unlike the other protagonists I have written about before, Raskolnikov is hard to sympathize with. He feels justified in his crimes-- above the general public. His adversity, and his girlfriend's persistence lead him down the road to redemption. Raskolnikov is convicted of the murders finally and at first he is sentenced to death. That sentence is then reduced to eight years of hard labor in Siberia. What's interesting in Raskolnikov's case is that he is not the one who instigates the journey to redemption, rather his girlfriend Sonia is. She is the reason he chooses to better himself through such adversity; not the adversity itself. In relation to my big question, that leaves me to conclude that it was NOT the failure/adversity Raskolnikov encountered that strengthened his potential and made him a better person. In this case, a third party is what inspired such transformation.

King Lear

Over the last few weeks, my AP Lit class has been reading Shakespeare's King Lear in class, and it ties very well into my big question of whether or not facing adversity and/or failure strengthens an individual or hinders their potential. On example being found in the character whom the novel is named after, King Lear. Lear naively gives up his power and authority to Regan and Gonneril, only for them to plot his downfall. He is shocked at their assertion for independence after he gave them everything they had. Lear realizes his stupidity soon enough. His retirement starts a series of conflicts that lead the whole country to civil war. Two of Lear's own children turn against him, and Lear goes mad and wanders around in a thunderstorm, shouting at the sky. In some sense, what happens to Lear is tragic. He ends up suffering in ways that elderly people are not supposed to. Worst of all, Lear is betrayed by his own flesh and blood. Yet Lear also experiences an incredible transformation. Through adversity, Lear gains a new perspective on life. He rejects power and politics and decides that what really matters is being with the people he loves. For the first time, Lear also feels sympathy for the hardship undergone by others – especially the homeless that wander about the kingdom. His strange journey makes Lear a much better person. Clearly Lear's encounter with adversity has strengthened him as an individual. He has a heightened sense of moral awareness and he also undergoes self- enlightenment. Even though he dies in the end, it is a Shakespearean tragedy after all, Lear has benefited from the trials and adversity he has run into.

Oedipus

Over the last couple weeks our AP Lit class, we read Oedipus Rex by Sophocles. This Greek tragedy answers  my big question on the opposite side of the spectrum from what my last post did. Oedipus fled from the family he knew, post- hearing of the prophecy that he would kill his father and marry his mother, in order to avoid fulfillment. However, who Oedipus had been calling "Mom" and "Dad," were not truly in fact his birth parents. As a result of his attempt to flee from his fate, he strikes a nobleman dead and all but one of the men traveling with him. He proceeds on to succeed the throne of Thebes because their king was gone, and he takes the queen to be his wife. Years later, the city of Thebes is burdened by a curse and Oedipus vows to do all he can to make it right- meaning bring punishment and avenge the murder of King Laios. By agreeing to such a thing, Oedipus unknowingly brings upon his own downfall because he was in fact the very murderer he condemns. The play goes on and eventually Oedipus gains all the facts and comes to the horrible realization he has fulfilled the prophecy. The result of this adversity upon Oedipus does not make him stronger and better suited for the future, no. It does the opposite. Oedipus chooses to fall a victim to his faults and conflict, gouges out his own eyes, and expels himself to a life lived in exile. The key to overcoming the hardships of ones life is the conscious decision that must be made. "No, you will not defeat me. I choose to conquer, not be conquered by you," is what one must say to themselves as opposed to what Oedipus chose to buy into," I am an abomination. I am no good, this trial defines me and has taken all that is left of me. I give up." I don't think that last choice sounds too beneficial, but that's just me.

Stronger

Does facing adversity and failure strengthen an individual or hinder their potential?

One play was all it took. One second I'm running a practice drill and then next I'm looking up at my coach's face towering over me as I lay crippled on the gym floor. Tears are streaming down my face and I feel a piercing pain in my right knee. Little do I know that collision, along with one other injury in the coming year, will contribute surgeries #7 and  #8 for me; as well as end my career as a basketball player.

These battle wounds that lead to my basketball downfall try my sanity and present great adversity to my previously trial-less life. My identity was found in basketball, and now I am haunted by the words of my doctor that tell me it's time to throw in the towel. My body can't handle high contact sports. Those words themselves delivered what felt like the hardest blow I had ever felt, worse than when I blew my ACL. I fell a victim to adversity and I didn't know what I did to deserve this.

Now that I look back at the trials I faced- both physical and emotional- and the strength in character that they gave birth to, I am thankful for each and every one. Had I not had those struggles I would not be who I am today. Not only do I have a good idea of my future career (a physical therapist), but I also can empathize and encourage others that go through trials- related or unrelated to my own. I have a greater drive to explore things outside of my comfort zone and I know that I am not defined by my genetic mutations.

 There are many movies, songs, and articles that this question relates to. One example being the song Beauty Will Rise by Steven Curtis Chapman's who's lyrics read "Out of these ashes...beauty will rise." I take that to mean that only after we've been knocked down, can we truly rise up and be victorious. A thought that Steve Jobs, CEO/Chairman of Apple is well aware of. He was fired before making Apple the moneymaking machine it is today. He hit rock bottom and learned from his mistakes, Jobs is now considered to be a modern day Thomas Edison and one of the greatest thinkers of our time. Throughout society and history you can see that some of the most successful businessmen/women are ones that experienced great trials and failure. Success is a choice, and how you choose to respond to failure can make or break you.