Blogging Around #2

Jacob's post discussed the dialectic between capitalism and socialism in the U.S.
I said:

I would agree with you that the U.S. (and most of the world) rests somewhere between capitalism and socialism. However, I think the "capitalism" you describe is closer to anarchy. In my understanding, capitalism recognizes a place for government--it enforces contracts between people and businesses, upholds rights, etc. What isn't capitalist is when governments start doing the job of businesses--providing goods and services such as health care. You could argue that pure capitalism is not realistic or desirable, but it is a little less extreme and more viable than the anarchy you described.

Merrick's post talked about the relationship between religion and hatred. I said:

I agree that hatred and religion are often connected to each other, but I don't think it's fair to say that religion itself causes hatred. I would argue that hatred comes from people manipulating and exploiting religion for their own ends. Many of the examples you give are less an example of people doing bad things because of religion and more of people using religious differences to justify whatever they are doing. Obviously this is a real problem, but it's not one that's unique to religion. From history we can see that any compelling idea--from the promise of life after death, to the belief in the greatness of one's country--can be exploited and used to justify hatred and violence. Obviously, exploiting these powerful ideas can have dire consequences, like the hatred you describe in your post. But this hatred does not have to be a part of religion, and most of the time it is not.

360 Degrees: Health Care

I don't know how closely people are following the health care debate, but it seems that Congress will probably begin voting on bills relatively soon. The most controversial (and in my opinion, most important) part of the debate is about the public option, a government run insurance plan that would compete with the private insurance companies.
Supporters of the public option argue that in America's current system, insurance companies overcharge for coverage and cherry-pick the healthiest customers, making it impossible for the poor or ill to get coverage. We pay the most in the world for health care, yet our life expectancy is lower than many other countries and the World Health Organization ranked our system 37th in the world. The government can insure these people for less, negotiate for lower prices, set standards for high-quality care and force private insurers to measure up.
Opponents have raised a number of objections. They argue that Americans do get the best care--by some measures, such as cancer survival rates, we really do lead the world. Many object that nobody can compete with a company that writes the rules, funds itself with its competitors' taxes and has no obligation to make a profit. Government attempts at cost control, they say, will inevitably lead to reduced quality and rationing of care.
Personally, I am opposed to a public option, a position I like to think I arrived at after weighing all the information carefully. I'm sure some others in Academy have strong opinions about this. I'm interested to know what everyone else thinks.

Blogging Around

In response to Lauren's post, which checked The Kite Runner against the archetype of the Hero's Journey and asked whether Amir was a hero:

I remember learning about this when we read the Epic of Gilgamesh last year, but I had completely forgotten about it since then. This is a way of looking at the book that nobody brought up during class, probably because Amir's actions during his childhood were so clearly un-heroic. But Gilgamesh is not admirable at the start of the Epic either--he must pass through many ordeals and adventures to become a wise and good king. And while Gilgamesh's story included bigger, more dramatic adventures--climbing mountains, fighting monsters, and so on--his most important journey was internal, just like Amir's. Amir is no Gilgamesh, and his journey of redemption has none of the glory of ancient mythology, but there is something heroic about it all the same.

On Sam's post about how, in great literature and great art, not understanding everything can be a good thing:

Sam, I think that I agree with you about this. The meaning of a great book or painting may be difficult to understand, but it can still be valuable if it makes the reader/viewer think. On the other hand, I have read many books that made me think without being difficult or intimidating. And at the same time, simply being difficult doesn't make a book valuable. Everyone has read books that were difficult to get through without giving new insight into anything. In my opinion, it's possible for a book to touch on important, "difficult" ideas but remain approachable and easy to read.

Best of the Week: Author-Character Interaction

In Kite Runner so far, the major theme has been Amir's determination to flee from his past. He tries again and again to run away from the memory of his betrayal of Hassan. He leaves his country and buries himself in a new life in America, keeping his guilt a secret even from his wife. But despite his desperate efforts to run away, something draws him back irresistibly to this memory.

Why does this happen? How can it happen, in spite of Amir's resistance? Mr. Allen suggested an interesting way of thinking about it: the story is a battle between Amir and the author, with Hosseini pushing Amir towards facing his past, and Amir fighting him all the way. Amir fears the pain of remembering his betrayal of Hassan. But Hosseini knows that the only way Amir can truly move on from the alley in Kabul is to confront what he did there. And so, against his will, Amir will be forced to face what he has done, and in the process find closure or even redemption.

This idea, that a story can be thought of as a conflict between the author and the main character, is one I haven't heard before. As I have thought about it, I realize that something similar happens in many of the stories I've read: The main character is pushed from their relatively happy life by events beyond their control (in other words, the author) and forced to confront a dreaded enemy, whether it is external or internal. In fact, a book that was not like this, in which the character could control everything that happened to him, would be quite boring to read. This conflict between author and character, it seems, is a key part of a good story. I'm glad that now I will recognize it when I see it.

Carry it Forward: Beat by Beat

From the time I learned to read, it has been one of my favorite pastimes. Though my taste in books has changed a lot since then, I still enjoy it just as much. And I particularly enjoy those writers who tell their fascinating stories with rhythmic, almost poetic prose.

And yet, although I have enjoyed writing nearly as long as reading, I have never really considered the rhythms of the words i write. As I compose my stories and essays, I think constantly about making the ideas of each sentence flow smoothly into the next. It seems obvious that I should also consider the sounds of each sentence, but somehow that had never occurred to me.

So when we read Beat by Beat: The Rhythm of Great Writing in class yesterday, it was not the first time I had thought about the subject. It did, however, help me realize that rhythm could enhance my writing just as it does for my favorite authors. For me, it has opened up a new dimension of writing that I look forward to exploring this year.

As I mentioned before, I already try to choose my words carefully, write sentences precisely, and fit them together into a coherent piece. Now, however, I will look at each level of writing in another light as well, choosing my words not just for their meaning but for their sound. Through rhythm, I hope to make my writing more engaging and readable than I ever could before.