Mind Map!

Click on the picture to make it larger.

Knut Hamsun Is The Protagonist!

The peculiar protagonist of Hunger can know show its origins. After reading ‘Knut Hamsun’s Christian Perversions,’ I can know comprehend how Knut Hamsun was able to portray such a realistic and sentimental character, he was basing it on himself. This also gives you a more profound appreciation for the book; knowing that someone has actually felt the protagonist’s pain and misfortune you realize the poverty that is present in the world. The correlation between the author and the protagonist are so great that upon looking back at the book you feel as though you could’ve named the protagonist Knut Hamsun. As Asim Lal said in his blog, “…the protagonist might as well be named Knut Hamsun! The things that make Knut Hamsun himself are as crazy as those that make the protagonist himself.” (http://asimlikesenglish.blogspot.com/2011/01/i-finally-know-what-to-name-protagonist.html)

The protagonist and the author have gone through extreme poverty and misfortunes when it comes to the writing, and that is one what shapes on the big ideas of the book. Throughout the novel the protagonist chooses continuously lies about his situations and state of being. Even though he may be starving his pride or ego for that matter prevent him from telling people the truth; he illustrates his life in a much better light than it actually is. He chose not to take food when they were giving it to the homeless even though he was in dire need of it, he also decided to lie to the police when he went to jail. One may ponder upon the possibility that this all has to do with ego, more specifically an ego that was created by his ability to write. The Protagonist knows that he has the ability to produce a masterpiece and he is conscious of the fact that if he is in the right ‘situation’ then words just come to him. I suppose that he is ashamed of his situation simply because he knows he has the potential to change it. As I talk about this, it only makes sense that this could be true for Knut Hamsun as well. Upon doing some research I came across one of his biographies which stated, “From early childhood he was a shoemaker's apprentice, but was also a road worker, stonemason, junior-level teacher, and so on. He spent some years in America, travelling and working as a tram driver.” (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1920/hamsun-bio.html) This shows that Knut Hamsun was struggling to make a life for himself, yet he deemed it necessary to keep on writing because he was aware of his potential.

            I’m glad I got to read Knut Hamsun’s Christian Perversions as it made it easier for me to understand how Hamsun was able to write such an enticing novel. Perhaps Hamsun had the same difficulty as the protagonist in finding a paper that would give him a reasonable amount of money, but he knew that some aspects of his life were worth writing about. It’s quite sensational to realize that this book is a true story; when I first read I though it was sad, but now that I know its origins it’s devastating to think that somebody lived like the protagonist.

Pastiche

The Protagonist of Hunger writes about the U.S and Iraq.

            What the hell did they accomplish? U.S intelligence was told that there were weapons of mass destructions located in Iraq so they decided to go there. Upon arrival they discovered that their intelligence was wrong. Yet, they stayed anyways! Everyday thousands and thousands of Americans are dying; not to mention that fact that they spent $733 billion into a mission who’s goal cannot be achieved. No, sorry it did have an achievable goal. According to George W. Bush, it was to free the Iraqi people. Does he not wonder what people will think of him? He is not freeing the Iraqi people he’s killing them everyday! Why are they still there? There is unquestionable evidence that there are no weapons of mass destruction, Sadam Hussain is dead, and The U.S has lost over $700 billion. Bush then goes on to say that they are there because they cannot leave the Iraq in chaos. Well, I doubt it can be more chaotic than thousands of people dying everyday! Wow, that lady is so pretty. If she was a princess and I was a prince I would ask her to marry me in a heartbeat. No, Stay focused! Unless this paper gets me some money, I will have to go yet another day without food. Actually, this paper is quite amazing; I should make some money for this. Or is it too direct? Will people think I’m too one sided about this topic? Anyhow, it doesn’t matter. I am not going to change my beliefs simply because it will entertain and interest people I don’t even know. This paper represents what I want to say! And that is what’s important. This dreadful and hopeless day now seems quite fabulous and full of opportunities. 

I Need It, Yet I Do Not Want It...

Hunger by Knut Hamsun and A Hunger Artist by Franz Kafka have a great deal in common. The protagonists in both stories have a very similar approach to life and one that is unique, unlike that of societies. They are both choosing poverty even though they have the means to eat.

The life of the hunger artist is quite ironic as he needs his watchers, but doesn’t want to need them. He stays in his cage trapped exactly like an animal and he is proud of the fact that people come and watch him. As the days of hunger grow larger he feels as though he is succeeding towards his goal, one may even consider him a martyr. The question then becomes, what is his goal? What is he so willing to die for? The act of hunger isn’t what’s important; it’s why he is doing it. It is not common for people to starve themselves and the reason why is doing it is because he is rebelling to society he is showing the public that he won’t live in the guidelines that society deem necessary. The protagonist wants people to observe what he is doing and then wonder whether there is a purpose to it. He wants them to believe in what he is doing, but he will not force them if they cannot understand.

The protagonist in Hunger is quite comparable to the hunger artist. As I said earlier the hunger artist needs the people to watch him, but he doesn’t want that to be the case. Similarly, The protagonist in Hunger needs to write in order to gain money, but he doesn’t want to write for other people; he does it for himself. His belief is that he should write a paper based on what he feels, not what society will enjoy. However, the problem with that notion is that if no one enjoys his style of writing then he will starve. Again this brings back to presenting these protagonists as martyrs, they will be true to themselves no matter what the cost.

These protagonists are unique, as they only do what they believe in no matter what the repercussions. If everyone lived this way, they would be more original as they would only do what they wanted as oppose to doing what society asks of them. That being said if everyone had the same ideology as those protagonists then there would be chaos in the world. For the hunger artist, everyone left and no one admired him anymore; and for the protagonist in Hunger, he decided to leave the city he was in. Their dedication is admirable, but what did being true to their feelings get them? Nothing. 

Distractions Are Everywhere!

 “We are constantly distracted from our everyday tasks,” says Damon Young. Everybody I know would undoubtedly agree with this statement, because what are Blackberry’s, twitter, Facebook, msn, and My Space? They are all distractions that are keeping us from doing our work! Young states this problem by saying that we always wait for the next ‘hit’; the moment I hear by Blackberry make a sound I immediately reach into my pocket and look at the text, BBM, e-mail, WhatsApp or Facbook message that I just got. In fact, while writing this I jut realized how many distractions I have in this small gadget. Moreover, Young says in the article, “Wait. What was I doing?” This is a problem I encounter multiple times in a day, whenever I am on my laptop doing homework at some point or another my phone will ring and when it does I check it. That is the problem! I change attention to what the blackberry says, and forget my ideas for the paper I am writing or forget what equation I was about to write. Further on in the article Young states, “Is that he does not know how to stay quietly in his room.” I cannot remember the last time I was in my room and there was no sound; either the TV is on or the music. However, then it comes time to do homework at which point it is quite… no, the phone starts ringing again. The worst part is, I am relieved it’s a break I get to start a conversation with my friends and have a good laugh. What I don’t anticipate is that my concentration when I go back to work will be split, as I will think about the conversation that I just had. In my opinion, to do a homework that represents your full potential you must turn off all distractions. For me, that is impossible there is no way I can have my phone off for more than 30 minutes because my mind will just wonder about all the BBM’s, calls, and texts that I missed. And that is why we are doomed! We cannot stay focused for there are too many distractions that we NEED. In fact, you’ve probably been distracted by something or another in the time span that you’ve been reading this blog. I know I have.

            In Hunger the protagonist is incredibly poor and he must write in order to receive money which he can then spend on food. If it’s not for his writing then it is very possible that he will die of starvation. However, this is the point that Young makes, no matter how drastic it is that we stay focused without distractions it simply cannot happen. Of course, the protagonist in the book does not have all the technology we do at his disposal. The matter of the fact is, one will always find distractions no matter how little they are. Furthermore, Young says, “ If we’ve no smartphones and online social networking, there’s gossip, gambling or booze.” At one point in Hunger the protagonist is sitting on a bench in the park and writing, but then a fly comes on his paper and instead of making it fly away he gets distracted by it. It’s a scary thought, but something will always distract you the question is, how long will be distracted? I would like to end this post on a quote that Young decides to begin with as it shows us that we can’t blame anyone for this problem. “But don’t blame technology because the causes are humans.”

Existentialism: Should we follow it?

Before reading Existentialism Is a Humanism I was very strongly opposed to the idea of Existentialism. However, Jean-Paul Sartre may have just shown me why it is ‘understandable’ that some people follow it. I am definitely not an Existentialist but I do see that some of their beliefs are logical as well as efficient. So, I am going to figure out how much of it I like and dislike while writing this blog.

            The though that everyone is free does make sense because we as individuals should be free to make our own decisions and take action for what we believe in. For are we not puppets of society if we only do what is asked of us? The notion that one should question why and what they are doing is reasonable if not practical. It gives us more time to understand who we are and what we believe in. Moreover, with freedom comes the ability to make choices and existentialism believes that the choices you make creates human nature. This is reasonable as the human nature stands for the concept that we do something because it is in our nature, but how can we know what our nature is if we haven’t made choices? The choices we make, make us who we are and choices represent our feelings and beliefs towards a certain situation. All that being said, there are some points that Existentialist make that aren’t quite so logical.

            Human free will is a tricky subject because if you give them too much freedom then there will be no order. Existentialism, in my opinion, thinks to highly of humans; they believe that decisions are not without stress and consequences. For most people that is true, we way our options and then take a decisions based on the repercussions it will have. However, there is a certain population of people that don’t use their rational minds to make decisions; instead they let impulse or emotions get the better of them. People who murder others in cold blood may be unstable, emotional, or simply believe in it. The problem is that these people will always exist not matter what, and if we let humans be completely free then how can we possibly keep everyone safe? The job of a society is to build laws and rules based on what will keep their population safe and happy, but if there is complete freedom then a society cannot function and fulfill its vital purpose.

            Jean-Paul Sartre presents the reader with an interesting situation where a kid with no father has to choose between staying with his ill mother and leaving to avenge his brother's death as well as helping his country during a time of war. As Asim said in his blog, “I understand how he would see this to be a good example of following what you want and morality, but any decision other than staying with your mother is immoral. If the woman who brought you into this world is getting hurt, it is outlandish for you, as the son, to leave. The moment that family stops being your number one priority is the moment that I begin to look down on you. No matter how much you believe in self-exploration, to have the audacity to leave your mother to explore something for you own, is uncalled for. It is disgusting.” (http://asimlikesenglish.blogspot.com/2011/01/ironic-and-immoral.html) He is completely right, how is it justifiable to leave someone you love behind and go fight for people you do not know? In fact, it’s not even someone you just love they are also deeply sick and they’ve always been there for you, but now that it is your turn you just let them rot and die? This cannot be a good way to live your life! Although, we never find out which decision the boy took any belief system that asks you to leave your ill mother behind and leave for war is not one I would follow.

            So, even though some decent points were presented there is no way that I would ever be an existentialist. I would not want to live in a society where people were unsafe and ‘being in the worst state or your life’ would be considered a remarkable thing!