#i interpret it as the weight of being the most beautiful mortal boy to exist

[glossc1]

ganymede and the erotes (eros, himeros)

more ganymede 🍎

[sirikenobi12]

Dear Mr. Filoni: About Qui-Gon Jinn

Mr. Filoni, I know you are pretty much the undisputed Padawan of George Lucas, but like many students they can sometimes misunderstand their teachings or interpret things from a certain point of view. While I won’t deny you are a brilliant creator who have brought us some amazing Star Wars content you said something a little while back about Qui-Gon Jinn that I think is rather nearsighted and in my opinion incorrect.

“And with the death of Qui-Gon Jinn, Anakin loses the father figure who truly could have understood him – and maybe prevented what was to come.”

This implies several things, the first is that Anakin never had a father figure in his life. Or, rather that he lost the father figure he truly needed. In many ways this is implying that if someone grows up without a father (or a traditional father figure) then they are missing out or won’t have a stable childhood. What about all the people who are raised by single mothers or grandparents or aunts/uncles or by their older siblings? 

Pixar’s Onward is a great example of finding a father figure through an older brother, it highlights that just because Ian never had a chance to meet his father didn’t mean that he lost out on a father figure in his brother Barley. 

“I never had a dad, but I always had you.”

Saying that Anakin lost the father figure who truly could have understood him also just spits in the face of a young man who also lost his father figure in that moment and gave up everything to raise Anakin. 

Let’s unpack that a little bit. Imagine if you will you’re twenty-five years old, you’ve worked your ENTIRE life for a particular goal which is to be a Jedi Knight, traveling the galaxy doing the most good that you can while discovering who you are on your own. Then maybe down the road when you are ready to settle down and possibly train/raise an apprentice you’ll take one on. Suddenly the only father you’ve ever known pushes you aside for a child he’s just met (without even discussing it with you first) and then uses his last words to push this child on you, making him your responsibility, thus shattering your chance at the freedom of a true Knighthood. 

By all rights Obi-Wan could’ve given Anakin’s training over to the Council, the boy was in no way his responsibility. Much like an adult sibling doesn’t have to take on the responsibility of raising their minor siblings if their parents die, they could give the children over to the state and have a chance at a normal young adulthood instead of being thrust into being a parent before they are ready. But, Obi-Wan didn’t do that because he A.) Respected/loved Qui-Gon too much not to fulfill his final wishes, and B.) Knew it would be better for Anakin to take the boy under his wing. 

I will say this until I am blue in the face: OBI-WAN WAS A FATHER TO ANAKIN!! 

In fact, in Episode 2 Anakin refers to him as a father/father figure multiple times and it is clear their relationship while Anakin was a Padawan was that of a Father/Son. It isn’t until Anakin is knighted and they are peers that you see their relationship shift to that of brothers.  

Am I saying that Obi-Wan didn’t make mistakes when raising Anakin? Absolutely not, but would I argue that Anakin was missing out on a father figure because Qui-Gon died? No, I would not. 

The second part of that quote claims that Qui-Gon Jinn could’ve been someone who understood Anakin and might’ve been able to prevent what was to come. I 100% believe that would not have happened, while I think Qui-Gon Jinn is a very interesting character there is no indication in either canon or legends that he would’ve been a good influence on Anakin. In fact, quite the opposite. Here are the top ten reasons Qui-Gon would’ve been a terrible father influence for Anakin: 

1. Qui-Gon Jinn thinks the rules don’t apply to him: While many fans applaud Qui-Gon (including apparently you, Mr. Filoni) for going against the Jedi Council and being a “Maverick” I would argue that more often than not it was to his or his mission’s detriment. This is not to advocate that the Council was 100% correct or that Jedi shouldn’t question things, but there is a difference between questioning authority figures and flat out being obstinate. This is something Anakin excels at even with being raised by the rule abiding Kenobi, imagine how bad it would’ve been had Jinn raised him.

2. Qui-Gon Jinn was selfish: There are several examples of Qui-Gon using the guise of “the will of the Force” in order to get his way. Are we honestly supposed to believe that somehow this one man was more in tune with the Force than any other Jedi (including 12 powerful Jedi who were on the Council)?? And, if he truly believed in following the will of the Force then why did he constantly bend the rules to make sure the “Force” went his way - an example of this is had he actually believed it was the will of the Force that he free Anakin, he wouldn’t have had to make the chance cube go the way he wanted it to go. He flat out cheated so he could get his way.  

3. Qui-Gon was dangerously reckless: Many Jedi are reckless, even Obi-Wan said to Yoda in ESB “so was I if you’ll remember”. But Qui-Gon was reckless in ways that was pretty astounding. For example, EVERYONE told him that his plan to get off of Tatooine was dangerous and frankly stupid. Couldn’t they have just sold the Naboo ship and then purchased a clunker that would get them to Coruscant? Honestly, that would’ve probably hidden them better from the Trade Federation in the long run...but no, he instead decided the best course of action was to put a slave child in mortal danger, thus also placing all of their lives in the hands of a boy who had NEVER won a race before. Now, it ended up working in his favor, but even still those few days spent fixing up Anakin’s pod and then the race itself delayed the Queen from getting to Coruscant which meant more people died on Naboo all because Qui-Gon refused to see any other solutions. 

4. Qui-Gon was often a bully: our Maverick had no problems throwing his weight around to get what he wanted. The Council meeting with Anakin is a perfect example, he didn’t get the answer he wanted. So he put his hands on his hips and refused to leave the room until the Council caved to his demands. Another example of this is in Claudia Grey’s Master & Apprentice where he refuses to do his duty as a Jedi and fulfill the mission simply because he had a vision. He doesn’t discuss this with the Council or with Obi-Wan beforehand, he just decides for himself this is how it’s going to be and then throws a hissy-fit when he doesn't get his way. Or how about he is the one who cheated to get his way in winning Anakin and when Watto calls him out he threatens to get the Hutts involved? He just bullies his way to getting what he wanted.

  5. Qui-Gon never saw the bigger picture: Master Jinn’s whole thing is to focus on the here and the now, and while that’s great advice (especially for Obi-Wan who often looks too far a head) it also means that Qui-Gon often misses the big picture. An example of this is in the book Master & Apprentice where he wants to free the slaves on Pijal’s moon, but Yoda has to remind him that there is a bigger picture and they can only act if it’s in their mandate. He says this not because the Council doesn’t want to free slaves, but because there are incredibly complex consequences and if they were to just do whatever they wanted/could do as Jedi it would cause all kinds of issues for others and while he could maybe free a handful of slaves now it would cause countless others to suffer in the long run. But, Qui-Gon wouldn’t accept this, because he refused to see the bigger picture - he refused to look at anything except what was right in front of him.

6. Qui-Gon has a history of failing his Apprentices: Now, I know this isn’t Canon at the moment, but by the time we make it to TPM Qui-Gon has already done severe damage to 2 former Padawans, and is in danger of having history repeat itself. Xanatos was his second Apprentice right before Obi-Wan, and this Padawan was extremely powerful and Qui-Gon insisted he be trained, but the boy fell to the darkside because he had been too old to start training and had a healthy attachment to his family (sound familiar?). Qui-Gon was so devastated by his fall that he went back and reputed his first apprentice, Feemor, claiming he was such a failure of a Master that there is no way his first apprentice should’ve been knighted. He basically in his grief pushed aside an apprentice who while on paper wasn’t anything special, but was kind and dutiful and a true Jedi (sound familiar?). He then begrudgingly takes on Obi-Wan (only after 12 year old Obi-Wan offers to kill himself to save others) and then time and time again tries to basically pawn off Obi-Wan onto someone else (even as far into their relationship as the Master & Apprentice book). Then, when it finally looks like the Kenobi/Jinn team have figured out how to work well together Qui-Gon has to literally be reminded that his Obi-Wan even exists because Qui-Gon is so blinded by Anakin’s power!! How in any way does this seem like a better father figure option for the emotionally needy Anakin?

7. Qui-Gon Jinn has a history of Attachments: The specific example I have is again from Legends, but it shows how Qui-Gon allowed attachments to become dangerous. He had a childhood friend who he fell in love with, they decided that they could handle being committed to each other as well as the Order so they “pledged themselves” to one another (my guess is basically this is like a Jedi marriage so to speak). Sounds beautiful right, and it is, but...But his love interest Tahl was injured on a war torn planet where the children are so sick of their parents' civil war that they form a third army and go to war against the adults. Tahl is caught in the middle of this and is gravely injured. Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon are sent to rescue her, and Obi-Wan is sickened by the sight of children fighting and wants to stay and help, but Qui-Gon is so blinded by his attachment for Tahl that he for the first time EVER actually follows his mandate and tells Obi-Wan that they weren’t sent there to help the children, but to rescue Tahl. Obi-Wan who is only 13 doesn’t understand so instead of taking the time to really explain it, Qui-Gon just LEAVES his young apprentice behind on a war torn planet. Now, I’ll admit that Qui-Gon did give Obi-Wan a choice, to come back to Coruscant or to stay and fight, thus leaving the Jedi Order and Obi-Wan did make the choice to stay. But, it was Qui-Gon’s responsibility as the teacher to fully explain the situation to Obi-Wan and let him know that they could do more good if they were to go back to the Council and the Senate and try to return with supplies and reinforcements. But no, Qui-Gon just yelled at him, disregarded his feelings and told him their mission was to rescue Tahl. He didn’t bother using this as a teaching moment for Obi-Wan because he was so concerned about his attachment. And then later when Tahl actually died, Qui-Gon nearly fell to the dark side and it was Obi-Wan who saved him.  And then Qui-Gon went on to decide that because of the pain that had been inflicted by losing Tahl he’d basically give Obi-Wan an ultimatum when it came to the woman he loved (and basically downplayed it as nothing but a crush). Now, say what you want about how Obi-Wan handled Anakin/Padme’s relationship - maybe pretending it wasn’t happening instead of confronting Anakin about it wasn’t a healthy/smart choice, but at least he didn’t downplay it and make it look like Anakin’s feelings weren’t real or valid.

8. Qui-Gon refused to apologize: There are several examples where Qui-Gon refuses to accept any responsibilities and won’t apologize. One such point is in TPM where he basically traded his current Padawan in for a newer/shinier model in front of the entire Council (which if this alone isn’t enough cause to prove the man wasn’t the best father figure…) he then refused to even approach Obi-Wan about it, in fact the twenty five year old Apprentice who had just been tossed aside for a supposed prophecy came and apologized to Qui-Gon!! Another example is back in the Jedi Apprentice books where Qui-Gon leaves Obi-Wan on the war torn planet (as mentioned in #7) it is up to Obi-Wan to make it up to Qui-Gon and prove his worth once again. I’m not certain given Anakin’s tendency to need constant affirmations that this would’ve been a good combination.

9. Qui-Gon was manipulative: Oftentimes we see Qui-Gon manipulating people to get his way (I’m not talking about Jedi Mind Tricks). In TPM he manipulates Watto to win Anakin’s freedom, he even manipulates Obi-Wan into taking on the burden of training Anakin by making it his dying wish. He is not above manipulation if he gets his desired result. We see Anakin does the same thing, so one could argue Qui-Gon would’ve only encouraged this behavior.

10. Qui-Gon cared more about the prophecy than the boy: I’m not saying that Qui-Gon didn’t care about people, or even Anakin, in fact he was a very compassionate character. But, all of his arguments to have Anakin be trained was that he is “the Chosen One” not once does he talk about how the boy needs training simply because it’d be dangerous to leave such raw power alone in the galaxy without training, or that it would be the right thing to do. He doesn’t ever talk about how learning to be a Jedi would actually benefit the boy. Every single time he brings up Anakin needing training is because of the prophecy. Now, as far as it looks in both canon and legends Obi-Wan tried incredibly hard to not bring up the prophecy to Anakin (except on Mustafar), Obi-Wan would bring it up to Mace/Yoda but that was about it. Obi-Wan wasn’t blinded by the prophecy because until ROTS it didn’t really appear that he even believed in it - he believed in Anakin for who he was as a person. Something we just didn’t see with Qui-Gon.

Now, Qui-Gon has a lot of great qualities, I am not denying that, but to say that he would’ve been the father figure Anakin needed is just misguided. If you believe in the idea that there is a will of the Force one could argue that Obi-Wan training Anakin was that will, otherwise Qui-Gon wouldn’t have died. 

Also, Mr. Filoni, why is it that Anakin supposedly suffered because he didn’t have a father figure yet you turned around and gave Ahsoka a brother, not a father? Are you suggesting Ahsoka suffered as well because she didn’t have a father figure? Or, was Obi-Wan by this time finally “old” enough to be considered a father figure? 

This idea that Qui-Gon Jinn would’ve been the fix it to Anakin’s issues is just silly and once again places the blame of the Jedi’s destruction in the hands of the Council and specifically Obi-Wan, thus not forcing Anakin to be held responsible for any of his actions. 

I’m sorry, but it’s not a theory I buy due to a lack of evidence. 

[stupid-damn-harp]

Notes for “Rural Boys Watch the Apocalypse”

“Your hand’s in mine”

This poem doesn’t explicitly state the relationship between the two boys, and this adds to it. The two characters could be in a romantic relationship, and this choice comes with a variety of implications given the traditional christian liturgy that’s repeated throughout the poem. If this is the end of the world, where will these two gay boys end up? Are they thinking about their afterlife? Are they wondering if they can stay together? Whether they’ll be with their family? There’s so many questions that these boys might be thinking of if they’re in this sort of relationship. They could also just be very close neighbors. Later in the poem he specifies his “doomsday neighbors,” which might be a sign that the other boy and his family might be the other neighbors, or it might have just been explaining the neighbor’s behavior. Another option could be that they’re best friends that are so comfortable with each other that holding hands feels comforting, but not completely natural because the narrator thought it was important to point it out. 

“waters turnin' to blood”

The two boys obviously share the same or similar religious views, and are probably at least somewhat learned or devout in their faith. I grew up reading the scriptures and I can’t say off the top of my head what a biblical apocalypse looks like - but this boy can, and relates it to the other boy, expecting him to also understand.

“But there are only the fallin’ stars”

I’m struck that the “only” thing is the falling stars. It’s almost as if he’s saying that the rest of the world has already ended, already vanished from his view and his mind. All he can see is the stars falling, and it doesn’t matter anymore if the rest of the world or the people around him still exist. He’s somehow writing himself and the other boy off as unimportant in the face of this global catastrophe. This line also stands outside of any stanza, forcing us to pay attention to the entire phrase and inviting a degree of separation from the stanzas before and after. There are only the falling stars, and that’s important. More important than what this boy thought would happen, more important than telling where the initial warning came from. The present events hold more weight.

"'Least the weather channel warned us about it,"

I wonder why the weather channel is the one that predicted this apocalypse? He mentions falling stars, which might be under their jurisdiction, but I feel like higher-up governmental agencies would be in charge of announcing and predicting the literal end of the world. 

“are loadin' the back”

If the stars are falling, and this is the end of the world, where do these neighbors think they’re going? Where do they think that they’ll be safe?

“under large whitewashed crosses”

This line is especially striking given the religious imagery throughout the entire poem. Jesus was a middle eastern Jewish man, and that’s something that many Christians in America conveniently forget. Many people in this religion spread around views that those with darker skin are children of ham (as we see in the Poisonwood Bible) or suggest that the native american people are really the descendants of the Lamanites, so their darker skin was a curse from God. These crosses that the neighbors are taking with them embody all of these harmful beliefs. The religion itself is whitewashed. The crosses are described as large, and I’m having trouble modulating that size within my own thoughts. On one hand, they have to be small enough to fit within the back of a pickup truck. But, are these crosses large as in “human sized and could be used for their original purpose”? Large as in “larger than handheld so they seem giant, but they’re best suited for yard decorations”? Either way, I’m taking it as a symbol of how contemporary christians take up the most space in religious discussions in America and quite often interpret anything different from their blatantly obvious beliefs as an attack on their faith. Think Boomers yelling about the “war on christmas” type. These crosses are not only whitewashed but they’re large too, visibly screaming to anyone looking in their direction that the drivers of the truck belong to the Christian faith and that they’re going to be confrontational about it. Everything else is stacked under the crosses, giving them the most significance and the most visibility.

“I wanna see ‘em”

Honestly, this line slightly confused me. These women seem quite knowledgeable about the events foretold in the bible. But it’s also stated in the bible that human beings never see angels or God’s true form because we wouldn’t be able to handle it. Surely they must know that? Do they think that these rules will be lifted simply because the world is ending? Are they hoping to see these wonders even though it would have untold consequences on her own mortal form? Don’t get me wrong, I would also love to see an angel in their full and confusing glory, but I don’t have enough of a death wish to actually follow through with that.

“their calloused hands”

Interesting imagery here. Typically angels are described using delicate and ethereal words, or sometimes words that just remind us that angels are spirits and don’t have physical bodies. But the word “calloused.” Calluses imply hard work. Calluses mean rough hands, dirty feet, and tough love. Calluses mean a physical body that is growing stronger. There’s nothing delicate about calluses. There’s nothing inherently holy about calluses. The working class has calluses, and the so-called “perfect” bodies of models and influencersnever have calluses. But here these heavenly beings are, rough hands and all. Perhaps he’s envisioning someone he knows as an angel, and thus opted for the more human-feeling approach. Perhaps he’s hoping that the people of earth are fighting to stay here, fighting to continue living, and the mere act of carrying these writhing and fiery people causes so much work for the angels that they develop these human characteristics of calluses. Perhaps he’s hoping that he’ll become an angel over some darker fate. I’m not sure what implications were intended with this line, but it feels beautiful and wholly human to me, and I love it for that.

“stupid damn harp”

This is the first of two instances where the narrator uses the phrase “stupid dumb” to describe something of the archangel Gabriel’s. Both times he isn’t describing Gabriel himself, just things that he possesses in traditional stories. This could be a nervous boy making jokes in an unsure time as a coping mechanism, but it also could be the author showing his own disillusionment with the traditional christian stories and traditions. 

Additionally, the combination of “stupid” and “damn” here is pretty interesting. In Christian mythology, any deity in heaven (e.g. God, angels, Jesus, etc) possesses all the knowledge in the universe. This boy referring to the archangel’s belongings as “stupid” doesn’t reflect this. It almost feels like he wants to criticize the angel himself but he knows there might be consequences, so he settles for calling his iconic harp and tunic the words he wants to call the angel himself. He’s also using the word “damn,” which in biblical contexts typically has hellish connotations. If someone is damned, then they’ve been condemned to hell. The archangel Gabriel is the literal antithesis of that idea, so it’s interesting to see this word applied to anything involving him at all. 

“moanin’ like a sinner in hell”

This comparison continues the interesting dichotomy between heaven/hell that we find throughout the poem. The doomsday neighbors’ truck not only holds large whitewashed crosses, but also sounds like someone suffering in hell. Weirdly enough, it seems to give us a view at the sort of Christians that think they’re doing God’s work (holding the whitewashed crosses), but once they get started towards their destination, it becomes more and more obvious that they’re not being entirely truthful (sounding like a sinner in hell). 

I’m also struck by the mildness and neutrality in this sentence. Usually when someone’s talking about those in hell, the verb used is “screaming,” not “moaning.” Is this wishful thinking on the narrator’s part, or just a description of the truck’s engine using terminology he already knows? The narrator doesn’t seem to be passing judgement with this comparison either, it comes across as an observation rather than a condemnation of the neighbors’ actions. His family chose not to leave, their family is leaving right now, and those two actions aren’t compared or judged here.

*

This poem was chosen for the anthology because of the twisted biblical themes tempered by a slight homoerotic vibe. From the beginning of the Abrahamic religions to today, LGBt+ individuals have been left out of religious contexts at best and damned to hell at worst. Given the author’s experience as a gay trans man, I’m reading the narrator and the other “rural boy” as lovers. The poem contains many instances where the narrator invokes sacred and profane imagery in reference to the same objects or beings, and gives a new sort of “hot take’ on the biblical apocalypse - contributing perfectly to the theme of altered religion.

*

Bibliographical Information:

This poem was posted on Tumblr, and the original source is reblogged below. 

[auron570]

2018 Readlist

FAQ

Why do you read so many old books?

Because most of them belong to the public domain, and are thus freely available online. Also it is fun to see how much the past influences and creates the foundation for the present. And how much or how little has changed, and what this says about humanity.

 Orwell - Animal Farm (1945)

A satire on the Russian Revolution and the failure of communism. Among other things, Animal Farm underlines the importance of learning to read properly and think for oneself, in a way that tickles with dark humor.

 Orwell - 1984 (1949)

Similar to Animal Farm, 1984 is an even more systematic and total examination of a society where all history and information is tightly controlled and constantly being rewritten. Being published after WW2, 1984 trades some of Animal Farm’s humor for more serious and tragic imagery of concentration camps. In a sense, 1984 is an exploration of the possibility of mind control or brainwashing through societal-level propaganda.

 Huxley - Brave New World (1932)

Absolutely fantastic. If 1984 was about what would happen if everything we read was false, then Brave New World is what would happen if no one had the desire to read at all. Brave New World shows a futuristic society that runs like clockwork with the help of genetic engineering and a miracle drug called Soma. COMMUNITY, IDENTITY, STABILITY. BNW examines the costs of a society that is mass-produced off assembly lines.

 Fitzgerald - Great Gatsby (1925)

A criticism of conspicuous consumption and the Roaring 20s. You can’t bring your mansion with you when you die. Mortality sucks that way. Throughout the novel we are invited to ask ‘what makes Gatsby (the character) so great?’ From rags to riches to death, Gatsby’s lonely existence is pitiable, tragic and relatable as ever.

 Steinbeck - Grapes of Wrath (1939)

Steinbeck’s illustration of the 1930s Dust Bowl and the resulting migration of impoverished families west across the United States, is a poetic masterpiece. ‘You want to work for 15cents an hour?! Well I got a thousan’ fellas willing to work 10cents an hour.’ Also featuring two of the strongest female characters in modern literature, Grapes of Wrath is a powerful lesson on human dignity.

 Shakespeare - Hamlet (1599)

The more I read Hamlet, the more I come to the conclusion that Hamlet is about delay of action. In a way, Hamlet forces himself to be penitent for something he doesn’t do. The more time he spends contemplating whether or not to kill Claudius, the more time he has to beat himself up and call himself a coward, and for accidents to pile up. ‘But put your courage to the sticking place!’ Hamlet is what happens when you ask a philosopher to commit murder.

 Shakespeare - King Lear (1605)

A lesson in parenting. If you want people (especially your children) to respect you, do not spoil them. Lear learns this lesson far too late, and gives up his inheritance far too early. Another possible lesson is to not trust liars, and instead divine a person’s character by their actions. The trouble is, with so much action going on behind the scenes, the opportunities for dramatic irony and treachery are twofold!

 Wilde - Picture of Dorian Gray (1890)

An example of 19th century Gothic Romanticism. And also, similar to Great Gatsby, another cautionary tale against conspicuous consumption. Dorian Gray, forever beautiful, forever young, is by all appearances the outward ideal of a dandy. As the novel develops, his cruelty and vanity plunge to increasing depths.

 Wilde - Importance of Being Earnest (1895)

The comedic side of being a dandy. If the suit makes the man, surely if I wear a different suit I become a different man? In a play of double-identities, love polygons and other trivialities, Earnest is a raucous upset of 19th century decorum.

 Ibsen - Hedda Gabler (1891)

A complex and cruel character, Hedda’s penchant for destroying the lives of others, seems to stem from bitterness and boredom toward her own life.

 Williams - Glass Menagerie (1944)

Theater is a box through which we view the lives of our fellow homo sapiens. Like passing by an exhibit at the museum, or peeking in on pandas at the zoo, Glass Menagerie presents a slice of life.

 McCourt - Angela’s Ashes (1996)

A coming-of-age memoir about an Irish boy growing up in an impoverished family. From the day he’s born to the day he becomes a man, memorable moments include: father always coming home drunk, scavenging for coal to get the fire going, stealing loaves of bread, shoes made of tire rubber, having an affair with a terminally ill girl, having pig’s head for Christmas, and wearing Grandma’s old dress to stay warm at night.

 Salinger - Catcher in the Rye (1951)

A tightly written story of teenage angst, about the few days after an unmotivated student drops out of a New York prep school. Unable to face his family, he wanders around the bustling city, growing increasingly depressed. Holden’s conversations with different characters throughout the novel, underline a simple moral that sometimes we just want someone to listen. (Preferably someone who isn’t a phony!)

 Shakespeare - Macbeth (1606)

A bloody and ambitious soldier descends into madness after the murders the King! It can be difficult interpreting and staging the supernatural elements of the play (e.g. do you show the ghosts on stage? what about the Witches? When, why). But remember Shakespeare is writing in a time hundreds of years before modern psychology, where memory and cognition was still immaterial and mysterious. Similar to Dorian Gray (1890), Macbeth is a moral on how one’s actions affect one’s mind.

 Albom - Tuesdays with Morrie (1997)

Succumbing to ALS near the end of his life, sociology professor Morrie Schwartz welcomes death with open arms. Hosting many visitors and having many conversations with family, friends, past students, the media, Morrie’s affable outlook on life and mortality shines.

 Golding - Lord of the Flies (1954)

An allegory on the state of nature. One wonders if/how the story may have been different (and possibly more horrifying and prone to censorship debates) if female characters were involved. I suppose that would be a separate inquiry. Unable to see beyond the horizon, and unwilling to look at themselves, Jack and his follows almost doom them all.

 Lowry - The Giver (1993)

Another science fiction dystopia in a similar vein as Brave New World or 1984, but less difficult and more relatable for teenagers. Those who enjoy The Giver, should check out the film Pleasantville (1998) featuring Tobey Macguire getting stuck in a black-and-white world. Naturally the lesson being that life is never so simple.

 Naipaul - Miguel Street (1959)

A collection of short stories centered around unique characters in a slum in Port of Spain. Featuring arson, domestic violence and plenty of eccentric amateurs, Miguel Street illustrates a colorful community.

 Thiong’O - Weep Not Child (1964)

Set during the Mau Mau Uprising against British colonial rule, Weep Not Child follows one boy’s goal of education. Meanwhile his family falls apart around him, and is cut off from his best friend.

 Montgomery - Anne of Green Gables (1908)

Having recently been adapted by CBC/Netflix into a series (which is very good), the original novel is full of comedy, quaint coming-of-age lessons centered around school, tea parties, accidents and adventures. But despite this levity, Anne ends with a tragic turn which places it well within the realm of reality.

 Shelley - Frankenstein (1818)

Another example of 19th century Gothic Romanticism (like Dorian Gray). Doctor Victor Frankenstein becomes obsessed with the idea of creating life from inanimate material, only to spurn his own creation just after giving life to it. The monster, filled with rage and envy, murders Frankenstein’s dearest friends. A sort of cautionary tale in the same vein as Doctor Faustus by Marlowe, Frankenstein is a counter-weight to the enthusiasm around science at the time. That science can not only produce miracles, but also horrors in its own way if one is not careful.

 Anderson - Winesburg Ohio (1919)

A collection of short stories revolving around a small community (similar to Miguel Street). Themes of religion, old age, loneliness, love, feeling stuck in a small town, Winesburg is full of some of the most heart-rending stories in all literature. Also Winesburg manages to accomplish a unity of themes in very short space. The whole of Winesburg is much more than the sum of its parts, such that it can stand just as well against other great novels.

 Bronte, Charlotte - Jane Eyre (1847)

One could argue that Jane Eyre is the predecessor to Anne of Green Gables. The latter frequently references the former, both are about orphan girls who grow up successfully in the face of many adverse challenges. While Anne ends with the protagonist becoming a young adult, Jane Eyre ends with a more traditional romantic happy ending, but like Anne is not without its tragedy.

 Bronte, Emily - Wuthering Heights (1847)

Fun fact, Wuthering Heights was a novel I considered doing an independent study essay on, but didn’t since I didn’t know anything about literature back then. Although technically of the gothic genre, Bronte primarily uses cruelty and domestic violence to evoke scenes of horror, as opposed to ghosts and monsters, while at the same time using these as tools to explore very down-to-earth themes of social class and gender inequality.

 Joyce - Dubliners (1914)

Very similar to Winesburg Ohio, but without the same unity. For example, one story is difficult to read without first reading about the history of Ireland. There are some tear-jerkers and lovely metaphors. For example the final metaphor of “snow falling faintly through the universe”, is a variation of the oft-used metaphor of flowers. How they bloom for a short period then die. What is new with this metaphor is that each snowflake is unique, thanks to the chaotic tumbling of water droplets through the atmosphere, just like how every live is unique. But all snowflakes much reach the ground some time and then melt away into nothingness.