Johnny Got His Gun

Immediately I was struck by the book's unique prose and style. There is an almost stream of consciousness theme to the writing to the point where early on I was operating under the assumption that the different sections were not actually about the same character but disparate individuals sharing common experiences. The scenes are all very vivid. The scene where his arm is being removed in particular was extremely lifelike. I think this was the case due to the fact that it wasn't an extremely dramatic scene. In many ways it was the least chaotic sequence in this part of the book. Instead of pushing his description of the scene over the top, it was rather low key. He felt a hot pricking and peeling, and then realized his arm was gone. This description was able to be both vivid and vague; vague in that he wasn't quite aware of what was going on. This section worked so well because it didn't try extremely hard to convey the emotions it needed too, it just presented them and let the audience make up its own mind.

Gender

Through the media and American culture, I and others have been given a certain set of attributes which real men are expected to conform too. Men should be muscular, and rugged. They should never talk about their problems, and above all, real men never cry. This image has been given to us through movies, commercials and writing. The media portrays this image as being the be all and end all when it comes to being the way one is "supposed" to be. Whether this is right or wrong is ultimately irrelevant as it is how society portrays real men as being.

The Story of My Body

Throughout her life, Ortiz has measured herself and been measured by others physically on a scale pervaded by the media. When she is in Puerto Rico she is consistently praised for her good looks, to the point where the shop keeper goes out of his way to give her candy for being so pretty. When she moves to the United States however, she is judged by a different standard and is found to be lacking in terms of looks. This illustrates how different cultures define what is considered good-looking on different terms. Ortiz did not look any different when she moved to the United States than she had in Puerto Rico (at least not imediately, she obviously went through puberty and began to look different eventually) but she was judged to be far less attractive in the United States. This is epitomized by her statement at the very begining of the piece - in Puerto Rico she was considered "white", in the United States she is considered "brown".

The Problem With Marriage

I do not support gay marriage. I do not support "straight" marriage. I simply do not support marriage. Marriage is an antiquated and outdated institution that bears little relevance in the modern world. It can have a positively detrimental affect on individuals and society as a whole.

Marriage comes to us from a much simpler time when it was used in many cultures as a bartering system. "You get the woman, I get some sheep" was the overall methodology. Some areas of the world still employ this model when it comes to marriage. In other cultures, marriage became a more sacred thing, reserved for two individuals who loved one another deeply. That was all well and good, for it was a simpler time; a time not filled with fast food, one night stands and Las Vegas. If we look at marriage today, we see a pattern that is sad in its predictability. Close to 50% of all marriages end in divorce. Some sources say more, some less. Regardless, the number is high enough to be very telling. Is the problem that divorce is too easy? Santorum would argue that it is. But, no. The problem is that marriage is an institution that has long since outlived its prime.

We all know the elderly couple who lives down the block who has been married for 60 years and are just as in love as they were when they first were married. This however, is not a common occurrence. It is the exception that proves the rule. Most couples will never last this long, and of the ones who do, how much of their marriage is based on affection, and how much of it is based on feelings of obligation? A feeling of "I made my bed, and now I've got to sleep in it". Many couples do not stay together because they love one another, they do it because they feel obligated to do so for one reason or another. Perhaps it is their children; they don't want to cause them emotional upheaval. Maybe it's pressure from their family who considers divorce tantamount to the ultimate sin. Regardless of the reason, it isn't about love. I will concede that such couples exist, but even a strong proponent of marriage will admit they are few and far between.

In his article Wolfson lists numerous homosexual couples who have been together for years and have remained devoted to one another. Couples like this have stayed together because they love one another, and have a commitment to the family they have created. Is not this a truer union than a marriage based on feelings of obligation? Granted, these feelings of obligation can be present in a situation of co-habitation, but they are not as prominent. There is no legal recourse for a person who is co-habitating to simply pack up and leave. Many do not however. Santorum argues that these sorts of situations are extremely harmful to our society - I argue just the opposite. A union based on love and trust is a stronger and more beneficial one than a union based on litigation and obligation, both to the individuals involved and society as a whole.

Homer Simpson once remarked "Marriage is like a coffin, and each child is another nail." We laugh, but there is an element of truth in these words. Marriage can ultimately prove to be a stifling experience for many, leading husbands and wives to commit distasteful acts. Ultimately some individuals will be driven to such measures regardless of the circumstances, but for many it is marriage specifically that leads them down such a path.

Am I suggesting two people should avoid entering into a relationship knowing that there is a sizable chance things will not work out? Absolutely not. I believe it is the fundamental of all human experiences to give and receive love from a partner. And on a more practical level, it is required in order for us to continue to reproduce and maintain the human race. I simply put forth that marriage is not the ideal union for two people. During the height of the Roman Empire, the penalty of death entailed being nailed to a cross and left to hang for days at a time until one starved to death. This process was known as crucifixion, and was undoubtedly one of the most cruel and unusual punishments ever devised by mankind. Capital punishment evolved from crucifixion over the centuries to beheading, to hanging, to the electric chair, and more recently lethal injection. Our most current system is obviously not perfect, but it has come a long way from crucifixion. I think given the choice, most would choose lethal injection over any of the alternatives. I do not seek to liken marriage to any of the above practices, but provide this example to illustrate the idea that marriage is an age-old tradition in need of updating.

What then is the answer? I cannot provide one readily, as I believe there are no easy answers. To do something such as abolishing marriage would ultimately do more harm than good in the foreseeable future, despite my chagrin when it comes to the entire practice. My ideal would be to do away with the concept of marriage, and replace it with civil unions providing many of the financial benefits marriage provides. I recognize this is not likely to occur in the near future, so I move on to my second, and ultimately more achievable point: any couple aught to be granted the right to enter into a civil union regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. The state is not responsible for regulating these types of situations, although in recent years people have gotten the idea that the government aught to enforce their own personal views through legislation. Such is not the case. If you are opposed to the homosexual marriage, the answer is very simple. Don't marry someone of the same gender.

A democracy is a system of government that is not based upon the whims of a fringe group. If group X hates group Y, group X does not have any legal grounds to limit the rights of group Y. This is the ideal of democracy, but the truth lies somewhere in between. I would put forth that the majority of Americans are apathetic when it comes to the idea of homosexuals being able to marry. This indicates that the group that is strongly opposed is hardly a majority. As such, how can we in good conscience limit the rights of one specific group?

Marriage is not ideal. But until a better system is devised, the right to marry should not be denied to two human beings based on which gender they find more attractive.

What is Marriage?

Wolfson uses this case to illustrate that a group that is even more of a minority and less deserving of the right to marry has been granted the right to marry. He uses this particular example to point out how unfair the system is as he sees it. Prisoners, who are deemed morally unfit to function in civilized society are allowed to marry. What does this say about homosexuals when many of them (like the ones referenced in this article) behave exactly as society expects them too - with the obvious exception being that they are gay. It is therefore peculiar that decent, upright members of society are passed over when it comes to certain rights and the same rights are given to individuals who have failed at their chance to live within society. Wolfson uses this specific example for this very reason. He wants us to begin to question how ethically corect we find these circumstances. There are Americans who support gay-marriage; there are Americans who oppose gay-marriage; there are Americans who feel every perceivable point in between the two extremes. Regardless of which side we fall on, I doubt any of us support criminals. Therefore, how can a society grant certain rights to a group that we can all agree on are deserving of less rights (for our own safety) and deny rights to a group that functions in society?

It Takes a Family

In this article the metaphor of two planes is used to explain the alleged negative effects a single-parent family has upon a youth as opposed to a more traditional two-parent family. The metaphor utilized is that a two-parent family is a plane that gets where it's going most of the time; the single-parent family is more like a plane that gets where it is going some of the time, but not a lot of the time. The author alleges that given the choice, most people would choose the plane that has a higher rate of getting where it needs to go (i.e. the two-parent family). This metaphor is effective in that it plays on a fear many people have when it comes to flight - many are afraid to fly due to the perceived danger. Therefore this metaphor works well in that is plays on a more commonly held fear than had the comparison been something more obscure that less people could relate too.

The author's assertions in this section make sense upon first inspection, but when taking a closer look, several things strain the author's credibility. He alleges that single-parent homes are more likely to produce a juvenile delinquent than a two parent home. This in and off itself sounds good. I myself have known several children of single parents who behavior was lacking. This can be easily credited to the lack of a father or mother figure in their life. Alright, so far the author's argument checks out. However, when it comes to two-parent families always being better, I must take issue. Despite the fact that I have known children of single parents who were unruly and restless, I have known many children of two-parent homes that were equally unruly. In some circumstances, a mother or father can be extremely abusive, and damage a child emotionally and physically. In this scenario, it would be better to only have one parent than two when one was abusive.

The author's logic is also stretched a bit thin when we consider the fact that not all children that are products of "happy" two-parent families end up happy and healthy themselves. The unspoken assumption throughout the article is that if a family meets the condition the author has for a happy family, then the offspring of the family will be happy. This is simply not the case. Quite often a child will engage in negative behaviors whether the situation at home is a healthy one or not. While many of the author's ideas make sense, too many of them are simply simplified to black and white terms. It is apparent that the author is looking for a solution to a problem that has been plaguing our country for some time; unfortunately the answer isn't quite as simple as, "make sure all marriages are this way".

Appearances

The author's decision not to reveal that the two men who are attacked at the beginning of the article are heterosexual is a deliberate rhetorical choice that communicates a prevalent theme throughout the article. These men were not attacked because they were gay - rather they were assaulted because they were perceived to be gay - a fundamental difference. Simply due to the fact that these men did not conform to gender stereotypes labeled them as gay and open to the possibility of violence.

The issue of antigay violence becomes something much larger and closer to home for many people when they become aware of the fact that it is not just gays and lesbians who have to deal with homophobia. It quickly becomes apparent that one can be affected by homophobia whether they are gay, lesbian or straight. In the case of several of the people attacked in the article, simply dressing outside of their typical gender roles caused them to be preyed upon. In the case of the last two couples, it was simply a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The fact that homophobic violence, whether verbal or physical, is not just reserved for homosexuals reveals what a deeply ingrained problem it is. The cases in this article reveal just how deeply the hatred many people feel goes. It also allows us to see that this issue is not one that only affects a small number of people - it can affect us all.

Was Eustace Conway a Transcendentalist?

If we are using Emerson's model to prescribe a transcendentalist label - or not as the case may be - (and we most certainly would apply Emerson's train of thought it making this determination; he was himself considered the father of this line of thought) we must consider several different criteria before coming to a conclusion. Using Emerson's Nature as a referance, we can infer several of the following ideas. Eustace Conway all but forsakes his previous life at the age of 17 to live in nature (I use the term "forsakes" loosely, obviously he returned to certain aspects of this previously life, but for the purposes of this discussion, the term shall stand here). In so doing, he was able to cast off the constraints that modern American life had imposed upon him, gaining a greater sense of awareness about the natural world. These qualities seem to endow him with the transcendentalist properties that Emerson discusses in Nature. Emerson discusses that the purpose of Nature is to exist to inspire new creation, not simply "baren contemplation". This "baren contemplation" seems itself to be a phrase applicable to the modern American lifestyle. When people today survey nature, they do not recognize the beauty that is right in front of it. They pay it very little thought whatsoever, or in other words "barren contemplation". Eustace, despite all his failings, tends to recognize Nature for what it really is - or, at least moreso than most others. Eustace revels in Nature. He revers it; worships it; loves it. Not only that, but he is inspired by Nature to create as well as preverse in the case of Turtle Island. He is not content to simply view Nature complacently. One extremely telling passage from Nature is quoted below.


Every spirit builds itself a house; and beyond its house a world; and beyond its world, a heaven. Know then, that the world exists for you. For you is the phenomenon perfect. What we are, that only can we see. All that Adam had, all tha Caesar could, you have and can do. Adam called his house, heaven and earth; Caesar called his house, Rome' you perhaps call yours, a cobbler's trade, a hundred acres of ploughed land or a scholar's garret. Yet line for line and point for point, your dominion is as great as theirs, though without fine names. Build, therefore, your own world. As fast as you conform your life to the pure idea in your mind, that will unfold its great proportions.


Has not Eustace built his own world in Turtle Island? Is it not his Rome, his heaven and earth, his veritable utopia? It would certainly seem so. The criteria Emerson sets down are certainly met. By these standards, does Eustace not fit Emerson's mold? The two appear to be very much kindred spirits.

Nature

The beauty of nature reforms itself in the mind, and not for barren contemplation, but for new creation.

I found this particular part interesting due to the fact that it has meaning on several different levels. On the most literal level, we can draw comparisons to the fact that nature is always growing. This was the first meaning evident to me upon reading "The beauty of nature reforms itself..." This led me to think about how nature is always being revitalized by new seasons. Even during the winter, when many things die, this exile lasts not for long. If left to its own devices, nature is forever flourishing and multiplying, becoming successively more beautiful and numerous. On the more figurative level, taking this passage as a whole allows us to draw comparisons to Eustace Conway. Emerson describes nature as something that does just exists for people to think flippantly about, it exists so that people may draw inspiration from it to create something that is almost as beautiful and magnificent as the original nature itself. Eustace can be drawn into this particular example for very obvious reasons. From an extremely early age, he was inspired by nature. He spent all of the time he could manage immersing himself in it. During the stints when he was unable to immerse himself in it, he would dwell upon this fact. Eustace used nature as his inspiration in order to create things that were themselves of great beauty. The most notable example is Turtle Island, a 1000 acre plot of land he managed to carve out for himself in North Carolina. Drawing inspiration from the nature he loved so, Eustace created a place of great beauty, maintaining the land and building upon it. Eustace Conway is the epitome of Emerson's new creator.

The Last American Man

Elizabeth Gilbert wrote this book to pay homage to Eustace Conway’s lifestyle; a type of lifestyle that Gilbert argues once defined American manhood, but is quickly dying out. She wants us to take a long and hard look at our materialistic lifestyles, and potentially change them for the better. At the very least, she wants us to acknowledge the harmful nature of today’s pop culture. I believe that Gilbert wrote this book for very much the same reason that Eustace founded Turtle Island. Eustace was able to purchase Turtle Island bit by bit, salvaging land that would otherwise have been torn apart and turned into parking garages, strip malls, and urban sprawl. Conway sets aside this bit of land initially for the very simple reason that he loves the land and wants to preserve a piece of it, if only for himself. He quickly comes to realize the value of what he possesses, and seeks to use it to educate people about the harmfulness of their lifestyle. Gilbert’s portrait of Eustace came to exist in a manner quite similar to Turtle Island – it was cobbled together from bits and pieces she emerged with from interviews and journal entries. Her initial interest in the project itself was motivated simply by the fact that she is enamored by Eustace Conway. She finds him to be an extremely interesting figure, and well worth writing about. She comes to realize the value of what she has written and turns her attention to the potential for her work to raise awareness about the breakneck speed at which Americans find it necessary to live at all times.

“He is our mythical inner self, made flesh, which is why it’s comforting to meet him. Like seeing a bald eagle. (As long as there’s one left, we think, maybe things aren’t so bad, after all.) Of course, embodying the mythical hopes of an entire society is a pretty big job for one man, but Eustace has always been up for it. An people also sense that in him; they sense his self-assurance of being large enough to serve as a living metaphor, of being strong enough to carry all our desires on his back. So it’s safe to idolize him, which is an exciting experience in this callow, disillusioned age when it’s not sage to idolize anybody. And people get a little dizzy with that excitement, a little irrational.

In this passage Gilbert illustrates the idea that Eustace has become a symbol for us due to the fact that his very existence is comforting to us. Much like the bald eagle she mentions, if we see that birds such as those still exist, or men such as Eustace still exist, then things are not as bleak as they might appear. We therefore want to idealize Eustace in order to justify to ourselves American expansion. If a man such as Eustace can exist, then there really is no problem, is there? Gilbert writes the Last American Man for this reason. She wants to dispel the myth that just because a man like Eustace exists in today’s world, it means that things are at an acceptable place. She shows this throughout the story by revealing just how difficult Eustace’s life is, and through this she hopes to illustrate the dire condition American culture is in.