Heart of Darkness Part 2

           Archetypes are very much abound in "Heart of Darkness". In fact the title has the archetypal symbol of darkness in it. Darkness symbolizes chaos, mystery, and evil. The Africans described in the novel are all (as Marlow says) black.Associating a negative connotation towards the Africans. The river where Marlow lost his helmsman  represents death and rebirth. Even more so because Marlow dumped his body in the river. The sun represents enlightenment and wisdom, and many of the characters are told to stay out of the sun or that the exposure will make them go mad. The Africans take part in dancing, which is considered symbols of sexual pleasure. Many of the European characters look down upon their dances and customs. The wise old man could be a play on Mr. Kurtz , who is considered a god-like figure who knows all. Marlow has a somewhat typical archetypal journey. He willingly goes to Africa and has no supernatural aid. He does however have the crossing of the first threshold and the bellow of the whale experience when first arriving to Africa. He doesn't have many trial but he does see the injustices towards Africans. There is no meeting with a goddess, except his obsession with Kurtz. He does however deify or apotheosize his dead helmsman (who while in his life Marlow called him an idiot). And finally Marlow meets Kurtz.The fact that Kurtz isn't who Marlow thinks he is the rescue from without and when he finally returns to England it is the return threshold and finally the freedom to live.

Heart of Darkness

"They were conquerors, and for that you want only brute force-nothing to boast of, when you have it, since your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others. They grabbed......much"(9).
            The quote is said by Marlow, one the the seafaring men in the novel. I think Marlow refers to his country's (England) dominance over others. That their dominance is due to their having more brute force. And that the only way they could colonize other countries is because the countries were weak at the time. It was only chance . Also there is a sense of hate or scorn towards the mother country for taking advantage of others in their weaknesses. This relates to post-colonialism because it examines the "colonizers" ideology towards the mother country and the land that it presses. I , myself have always wondered if "colonizers" know that what they are actually doing. Do they know that when they conquer they are intruding in the lives of others and are forcing them to give up all they hold dear?  That when they conquer it is murder on a mass scale, but it is alright because it's in the name of their country? It's something I've long though about, if the oppressor expresses guilt over the wrongs they've committed.

Divorce is a very beautiful thing (Part 2 and 3 of Wide Sargasso Sea)

.

Just finished reading "Wide Sargasso Sea" and I have to say the book has made me ill, as in physically ill. The book is awesome, it gives me a perspective from characters that were not featured much in "Jane Eyre", and it has good storytelling.  I personally sympathize with Antoinette (Bertha) even more after reading this. Bronte makes Rochester someone to be pitied but Rhys makes him more detestable. In the novel he had the choice, the choice, to leave Antoinette. They could have gotten a divorce and could have moved back to England or India or somewhere. Instead he chooses to isolate her, ship her to a foreign country, and lock her in a room. Mind you that while Antoinette is locked away he is out in Paris and Milan having the time of his life. And there is a part where Rochester says he hates Antoinette. If he hates her, why not divorce her and move on with life? I know divorces were not as acceptable back then but I would think that someone could endure a little shame for a lifetime and happiness. And then Rochester cheats on her! In the next room! If he knew she was mad by then why speed up the process by making her angry? Which is not to say that Antoinette is completely faultless. She did cheat on Rochester with her cousin (nephew?) Sandi, which is weird in so many ways. I think everything could have been avoided if Antoinette would have moved somewhere far away so she could have had a fresh start. And I also think that she shouldn't have married Rochester in the first place and run away with Sandi. The book made me sick, which happens after every time I read something depressing (almost every book in Lit). This ends my rant/ blog about "Wide Sargasso Sea”, which I think is a very good novel, if not so depressing it makes you want to cry.

The Wide Sargasso Sea

             

   The “Wide Sargasso Sea” is a very interesting novel. I like it so far. While reading “Jane Eyre” I wondered about Bertha's story. Who was she before she met Rochester? Why is she crazy? And how does she feel about being locked in an attic? Few things are known about her and she was taken out of “Jane Eyre” too quickly and too conveniently. I felt as if Bertha was a stock character or a plot device used in the novel. Now in “Wide Sargasso Sea” that is another story. In fact, the story is about her. From her youthful days when she was a girl to when she became a seventeen year old (a grown woman in that period). She had to endure a lot, especially because she was semi poor, had a crazy mother, and her father is dead. She's more of an outsider (similar to Jane) and has few people in her life that she interacts with. This is surprising to me; in fact, her whole nature is surprising to me. I didn't picture Bertha (how do you make Bertha into Antoinette?) being so somber and thoughtful. But I like her character so far. I do not however like her mother (she cares for her brother more) and I do not like the way she is treated by the Jamaicans. I understand why they would dislike her family but burn her house down? And even her only friend betrays her. The girl has it tough. There are some facts in the book that line up with Rochester’s story of her in “Jane Eyre”, her mother is indeed mentally ill and Bertha is from Jamestown ,Jamaica. I guess you can say that Bertha is marginalized because she is isolated from everyone. She's not black, but she's not European or white  either. She's somewhere in between.

The End

              

     The end of “Crime and Punishment” has left me feeling…indifferent. The book was pretty good, it told an actual story and shows the hero after he gives him up. The ending wasn’t surprising and I expected that Raskolnikov would give himself up for a long time. The book just gives me an impression of, eh.  As in, oh, I’m done with the book now. I did like how loose ends were tied up. Dunya and Razumikhin got married. R realizes his love for Sonya (I was afraid that he would mistreat her for the rest of their lives) and they resolve to live their life together after R gets out of prison. An R’s mom goes crazy dies, which is sad because she only cared for her son. My favorite part of the book is during Dunya and Svid’s scene. The scene where Svid has Dunya locked in his room and asks her whether she loves him. Of course, she replies no, and so he kills himself. Very Shakespearean in my opinion. Before he kills himself however Svid gives his money away to Sonya (for R) and his fiancé, which shows that he wasn’t a really bad guy. Although we find earlier out that he poisoned his wife. I liked the part when R confessed, he should have done it a long time ago but I was glad he just did it. This novel has taught me about many things, especially suffering. Everyone in the book seems to be suffering. It’s as if they aren’t living life until they do. And many of these characters want to suffer. Dunya wants to, because in a conversation between R and Svid, Svid comments that if Dunya were born in an earlier time she would make herself a martyr. Sonya suffers because she takes on unnecessary tasks like supporting her family and bearing R’s sins. And R just suffers from page1 to page 463; he’s the poster child for it.  But all in all I enjoyed a good majority of the book and it has taught me many things (like the physiology of criminals)

Confession Time

  Raskolnikov finally does what he's (secretly) always wanted to do: confess. After the whole Luzhin incident he follows Sonya to her flat and confesses. He tells her why he really killed the moneylender and her sister. That his actions weren't for money, it was simply because he thought of himself as an extraordinary being and thought he could kill someone. He finds out that he's wrong when he displays guilt, depression, and remorse for committing the crime. Sonya demands that he turn himself in but he doesn't want to go yet. By the way, I don't think that Sonya and R actually love each other. Sonya has a savior complex and she wants to save him. While R is lonely and needs someone to confide in. But their talk ends quickly when they get the news that Katerina Petranova has gone bat crap crazy. Not only has she gotten herself evicted and beaten, but also she's exploiting her children. This ends when she dies of consumption (tuberculosis?). Fortunately the funeral fees and the children will be taken care of. Unfortunately they will be taken care of by Svid (who I think is a real psychopath). Svid also happens to know that R has killed the moneylender and her sister (courtesy of thin walls). Also, Porfiry comes over, and knows without a doubt that R is a murder and is guilty of killing the two women. He urges R to turn himself in or, if R decides to kill himself, to leave a note saying he did it (I find that hilarious). And then R goes to visit Svid, who begins to tell him of the woman who tried to save him, Dunya (but that's in the next chapter, see i read). i tracked my symbol, Sonya, during several more scenes. Sonya symbolizes human suffering and there has been a lot of suffering in the last few chapters. The most important scenes of Sonya are when R confesses to her and when Katerina Petranova goes crazy and dies.

Confession Time

             

  Raskolnikov finally does what he's (secretly) always wanted to do: confess. After the whole Luzhin incident he follows Sonya to her flat and confesses. He tells her why he really killed the moneylender and her sister. That his actions weren't for money, it was simply because he thought of himself as an extraordinary being and thought he could kill someone. He finds out that he's wrong when he displays guilt, depression, and remorse for committing the crime. Sonya demands that he turn himself in but he doesn't want to go yet. By the way, I don't think that Sonya and R actually love each other. Sonya has a savior complex and she wants to save him. While R is lonely and needs someone to confide in. But their talk ends quickly when they get the news that Katerina Petranova has gone bat crap crazy. Not only has she gotten herself evicted and beaten, but also she's exploiting her children. This ends when she dies of consumption (tuberculosis?). Fortunately the funeral fees and the children will be taken care of. Unfortunately they will be taken care of by Svid (who I think is a real psychopath). Svid also happens to know that R has killed the moneylender and her sister (courtesy of thin walls). Also, Porfiry comes over, and knows without a doubt that R is a murder and is guilty of killing the two women. He urges R to turn himself in or, if R decides to kill himself, to leave a note saying he did it (I find that hilarious). And then R goes to visit Svid, who begins to tell him of the woman who tried to save him, Dunya (but that's in the next chapter, see i read). i tracked my symbol, Sonya, during several more scenes. Sonya symbolizes human suffering and there has been a lot of suffering in the last few chapters. The most important scenes of Sonya are when R confesses to her and when Katerina Petranova goes crazy and dies.

Why Luzhin is single.

                    Part five of “Crime and Punishment’s” chapters’ focuses mainly on Marmeladov's funeral. Everyone in Marmeladov's building is invited to the funeral dinner (which Katerina spent most of Raskolinkov's money on). This includes Peter Luzhin, who is staying with Lebezyatnikov (the guy who beat Katerina). Luzhin is still reeling about his rejection by Dunya. He still keeps hope alive that they can still be together. Which includes setting up a not so elaborate scheme to frame Sonya. After inviting her to his room and offering to help out her family financially he then proceeds to slip in money into her pocket. And then during the funeral, the funeral for Sonya's father no less, he accuses her of stealing. He wants to cast Sonya in an even more negative light so that he can make it seem that Raskolnikov is wrong about her (when R said the women were all equal). Though that plan is flawed and his reasoning is confusing, because Dunya broke off the engagement after discovering what a manipulative control freak he is. But even it his plan did work she probably wouldn't go back to him. The problem was quickly solved when Lebezyatnikov tells the crowd that Luzhin slipped the note and when R explains Luzhin's reasoning. Luzhin quickly bows out of the apartment. And the landlady, who somehow believes that everything is Katerina’s fault, kicks Katerina and her children out out. Then R chases after Sonya, probably to invite her again to run away together

Wait, If nothing matters, then doesn't the fact that nothing matters matters?

                    The concept of nihilism is very interesting. That essentially nothing in this world matters, and that things that do matter to us only matter  because they were projected onto us. For instance getting married. Why do people want to get married? It's to spend the rest of their lives with a companion, but why is such importance placed on finding a spouse? It's not a life or death situation, you can live and be happy without a life partner. So why is it so important? It's been implanted in our heads from early on that we have to spend our lives with someone. Why do we go to school? Why do we have morals. To a nihilist none of these things matter. The importance of these things don't really exist, we, humans just want them to. And in a way Raskolinikov is very much a nihilist. He shows nihilist qualities especially when he speaks to Sonya. R is pondering why Sonya hasn't killed herself yet and is shocked to discover that she is a Christian. He mocks Sonya, asking her if God really is real. He also makes the assumption that Sonya only believes in God as a higher being in order to keep herself sane. That God really doesn't exist but that she wants Him to. (very confusing) I find Nietezsche to be brilliant. He spent a long time forming his takes on life, even though they were controversial(especially the God is Dead one) , And especially when his father was a pastor. And I can see hints of his life in "Crime and Punishment" , specifically R's dream about the beaten horse.

Hurah! I will not go Kathy Bates on anyone.

                So I took the physcopath test and lo and behold, I am not a physcopath. I think I'm way too emotional to ever be a physcopath (I cried after "Titanic"). Listening to the "This American Life" broadcast kind of alarmed me, especially the part about the CEO physcopath. Having someone in such a high position where they can actively make or break people's lives is scary. Could you imagine our President as a physco path, who wouldn't even care about the well being of the people? I also identify with what the author said, that he feels a bit envious of physcopaths.They are not held down by ideals, morals and ethics like regular people. Physcopaths just do what they want. Which is not good, I know, but there is something freeing about that. I found the broadcast to be very interesting and it's opened my eyes about some of the people around me.

You're sending me to jail? Why?! I haven't done anything wrong!

           From the combined efforts of reading "Minority Report", the article about the criminal mind, and the song "I don't like Mondays" by The Boomtown Rats i am slightly confused and mind blown. I did not quite understand the song, but i fully understood "minority Report" and the article.Scanning criminals brains to see what makes them different has been known about for quite a while.  Somehow some parts of their frontal lobes( emotions) don't work or haven't matured like a regular person. So if a person has a mental disorder (I'm guessing that now being a sociopath is a mental disorder) they could commit a crime without even knowing that they committed one. So should they be held liable for their crimes? They don't even know that their doing something wrong but on the other hand they are causing harm to someone. Could being a sociopath be used as a get out of jail free card? They still have done something wrong, so shouldn't they be punished? And if we could correct the problem before it starts are we being like the people like the "Minority Report"? How can we, society , do something to someone based on what their likely to do? Until that individual is actually on the verge of committing the crime only then can we know their intent. Locking up Innocent people is wrong.(By the way "MR" was one of the best short stories I've ever read) How can you punish someone when they haven't committed a crime? And on the subject of the song, i don't really understand it. I even went of you tube and watched the video ( the lead singer looks like Jerry Seinfeld) Are they talking about killing children and really seem to dislike Mondays. I think this all(except the song) relates to Crime and Punishment. If brain scanning had been around during Raskolnikov's time he wouldn't have been considered crazy, he would have just had a mental problem and he would have gotten help. He may would not have committed the crime in the first place if technology was available. And that would be especially true in the "Minority Report's" storyline. In there he would not have committed the crime in the first place.The crime would have been foreseen and and he would not have committed it.

P.S Could the Song be explained on Monday?

The Crazy Train

           For starters, let me start off by saying that R really is crazy. He has manic fits of depression, surges of happiness, and a misanthropic lifestyle. One moment he can be perfectly sane, like when he helps Marmeladov and his family. The next moment he can be raving about something that isn't rational. And a few times R tries to confess to the murder of the money lender. What? I thought the whole point of running away and getting rid of the evidence is so that he wouldn't be caught. Maybe he's subconsciously (or purposely) trying to confess. Maybe his guilt at this point is over riding him and he needs release. He certainly seems like he wants to get caught, even going so far as to tell a police officer of how he committed the crime. Also, R at this point really has only one friend, Raz. Yet R pushes Raz away and calls him annoying. What's up with that? Raz is probability one of the select few who care about R. R seems to be distancing himself from others as a form of punishment (though if i were me i wouldn't be friends with him anyway because the guy is nuts).
               I believe that redemption is possible for someone who has done something wrong. My belief probably stems from the fact that I'm a Christian, and the whole Christian doctrine is based on redemption. In fact, I think all religions believe in redemption, it's a universal theme found all around the world. Though just because I believe in redemption and forgiveness doesn't mean I'll forgive something easily. There has to be a level of sincerity to be forgiven. Lack of sincerity shows that that person is manipulative and people loose respect for them. Take one of those African dictators that engage in civil war, killing thousands of men women and children. Personally, I have a strong animosity towards that type of person but if they seek redemption out of the sincerity of their heart I must forgive them. In Christian doctrine you must forgive, your personal feelings aside if a person is being truthful. And if their being like the boy who cried wolf you still have to forgive them when they seek redemption.The consequences of their actions will be decided by God.

Crime and Punishment (yay, we finally know that the crime is !)

     In chapter 7 we finally find out the crime that Raskolnikov (or R) commits.After he has a vodka induced dream he sets out to kill the money lender. The dream is about an old horse (the money lender) being killed by it's master (R) because it's old and useless. The people jeering it on is symbolically R's mind, while the ones that want to stop it are his conschus.  After having this dream R then proceedes to go through with the murder the next day (but he's got a plan because he's been thinking about this for a while). i can see why the author would write a book aboout this when you consider his life. Although he didn't grow up underpoverished he saw alot of poverty where he lived as a child. That may be why he writes about characters who are in poverty and debt. He may want to highlight their problems and humanize them. Dostoevsy did not start off writing complex physcological stories either, it wan't until he was exiled to Siberia that he began adding more depth. He was also the main provider for his deceased wife and sister in law's familys, and couldnot come with the stress and debt. This is very similar to Marmeladov.
Is it a crime if someone other than yourself benefits?
  Why yes it is. A crime is still a crime no matter how it is dressed up.Murder is still murder. Stealing is still stealing. When the U.S government dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima during World War II it bebefitted America. Our enemy would be weaker and America would have an even better chance of winning the war. Our Eurpean Allies and enemies of Japan would have benefitted alot from it as well. But all the innoncent people who were killed our maimed or were mutated didn't. A crime was committed against those people and even though it would have benefitted others it was still wrong.

Crime and Punishment (Guess what this book is about.)

" Crime and Punishment" written by Fedor Dostoevsky, is so far about a guy named Raskolnikov in Russia. Raskolnikov (call him R), is a university drop out that's poor. He is also a recluse, likes to talk to himself and may or may not be crazy in my opinion. He keeps talking to himself about doing something that repulses him but something he can't stop thinking about.Which might be him committing a crime( because hey, the title is crime and punishment). The mood of the story is kind of dreary, especially when the novel describes the poverty of the city. The narration is third person, but it seems limited to only R at this point. R is described as physically handsome but is portrayed as snobbish and very passive ( in my opinion). I hope that when I finally read more of the novel I'll understand what R is going to do (like kill someone?).

Thr Road- The end

         So I've finished reading "The Road" , and quite honestly it's one of the most depressing books I've ever read. I know it has important themes like morality, love, and family but it's just to sad. Really, I feel like crying right now. After all that the man and the boy has been through the man dies and the boy finds the good guys. But it feels right. If the book had ended in any other way the ending wouldn't have had a strong impact and it wouldn't be realistic. The world the boy and the man lived in was a dog eat dog world, literally. Reading this novel has made me think of alot of things, like if I was in that situation could i be resilient enough to endure it?To face all the hardships the boy and the man did in order to reach something that may not exist. The south may exist but what they think may be in the south may not. I  don't think I could hold out long enough with hope. This book has also taught me that the morality of humans is flexible. That in times of dire need people would put aside their conventions of right and wrong to suit their own purposes.Take the cannibals for example. Everyone knows that cannibalism is wrong, but if there was nothing else to eat would you resort to eating someone else? Like a friend or family member? This book falls into the post apocolyptian genre but unlike the other post Apocalypse novels or movies I don't see a warning. There is pretty much nothing we can do to prevent something like that from happening. I think the book is more of a way of telling how humane people can be even in extreme circumstances, like the man and the boy.

The Road part A and B

      So far, The Road is getting more interesting as the boy and man travel towards the south. I've picked out notable quotes, or at least what I think are notable quotes. " The names of things slowly following those things into oblivion. Colors.the names of birds. the things to eat. How much was gone already?" The quote describes the man's fading memories of the world before. The world where birds, colors, plenty of food and civilization existed. Another quote is "What he could bear in the waking world he could not by night and he sat awake for fear that the dream would return." The man has a dream about his son laying on a cooling board. I think the man uses his dreams as a coping mechanism. He uses his dreams to escape his harsh reality.
   There are various theories concerning the end of the world out there. In this novel the world went up in flames for a reason not listed.After reading  both Yeats and Elliot's poems I see that have similarities. They all, including the novel, seem to be rooted in Christian doctrine. In  Elliot's poem there even seems to be a line from the bible: " For Thine is the Kingdom".  In all of the works when the world ends the social order will be shifted. Instead of virtuous people are in small supply and the wicked are in control. In Elliot's poem the "hollow men" are in control. In Yeats' poem the anti-Christ or adversary is in control. An in The Road the ones who rule that world are cannibals.

The Road

        "The Road", written by Cormac McCarthy, follows a man and his son as they journey in a post-apocalyptic world. Post-Apocalypse is a science fiction genre that focuses on the after math of the destruction of humanity. This novel can be considered  post-apocalyptic because the setting is in an ash covered waste land with hardly any people besides the main characters. A post apocalyptic movie I've seen is the "Book of Eli", featuring a blind man named Eli travelling in a lawless land. Another movie that is post-apocalyptic is "Zombieland", where a zombie Apocalypse has occurred and nearly everyone is a zombie.The genre has alot in common with dystopias, like being set in the future and not having favorable living conditions, but they are very different. In a dystopia it at least gives the pretense of a utopia and happiness. Post-Apocalypse is just downright depressing and dismal."Aeon Flux" is a good example of the blending of the genres.After a deadly virus nearly wipes out the earth's population the survivors build this dystopian society.I think that post-apocalyptic novels and movies have a greater impact because it scares us by showing how the negative things we do now will affect us later. The style of The Road is written in a breathless format. It has few commas, alot of conjunctions, and no quotations for when the characters speak. It gives the book of a feeling of a long drawn out dream that never quite ends. It also gives a sense of urgency with it's breathlessness. I don't like the writing style all that much, even though it has few words on the page. I've never read a novel like this which is probably why I'm so uncomfortable with it.

Brave New World Part III

 I've just finished BNW and all I have to say is wow. John is dead. He killed himself in the last chapter which although it left me speechless wasn't a shocker.  I understand why John did it , he felt he couldn't live in the world anymore. Because the civilized world, the one he'd always dreamt of, had been a lie. No emotions, no solitude, no passion. None of that existed in his BNW and so he left, only to be pursued and humiliated. That had me thinking what I would do if I were in that situation. I understand how he feels, it would be hard to live as the only outsider in a society, and then when you find like minded people they are sent away, and your left alone. That would be hard to adjust to. But I wouldn't end my life. I feel John took the easy way out, opting to end his life than endure his society. I also feel that if John continued any longer he would have gone insane. It's contradictory, live and go insane or die a coward. It gives me mixed feelings, but nevertheless I enjoyed the book. Not only has it made me think about the future, but it's also made me realize a truth: In order to achieve a perfect society things will have to be sacrificed. Whether it be your rights, your mind, your body, or even your children, something has to go, and BNW made me realize that.

Can Science Be Ethical ?

Freeman Dyson's  " Can Science Be Ethical?"  directly relates to "Brave New World". While Dyson  describes the future technology that will exist, BNW is the example society it will exist in. Dyson states that as scientific advancements are made our moral ethics will wane. In BNW  the dystopia is so technically advanced that humans are born through test tubes. One might ask, what happened to natural reproduction? Is it ethical, or morally acceptable to create a human? Is it acceptable to deny a woman her right at mother hood? In fact, in BNW, it is considered an insult to say someone is a mother. Dyson also foretells of people improving themselves and their children. Genetically modifying themselves in order to achieve perfection. BNW has genetically modified characters, who are chosen from birth to become whoever the society decides, no matter what the cost is physically and mentally it is to the person. As science increases it gains a more tighter grip on lives. Like a prophet of doom Dyson fortells a highly probable future with the way science is progressing. BNW seems to serve as a prototype or give us a clear example of the future. If ethics cannot be defined or a line is drawn people will loose the rights of a free thinking human being.

Brave New World part II

 Reading "Brave New World"  had me thinking about movies I've watched recently that had the same themes. The story, set in this seemingly utopian world where everyone is seemingly happy. I watched Aeon Flux not too long ago, it's about a post-apocoplayptic world that's perfect. Except that it isn't. The people are under a military dictatorship, humans are being reborn over and over using cloning by the government in secret, and people are starting to remeber their past lives. In Aeon's world, people literally live forever because they are being recloned after they die. I think this is similar to Brave New World because not only are the people maufactured they are opressed by some central authority.But while people in Aeon Flux have liberties like getting married and choosing their profession the BNW citizens don't have that option. They've been brainwashed or conditioned into thinknig that their lifestyle was predestined and that everyone belongs to everyone.The movie and the book are set in dystopias, in societies that are perfect but once you scratch the sufrface you see flaws.I think why the film makers chose to make Aeon Flux a dystopian society was to show what could happen in the future if reproduction is gone. In an effort to maintain the human race what lengths will people go to? And if immortality was possible would people take it even though it harms others (such as the rulers in the film's world)?

Brave New World

  Brave New World by Aldous Huxley is an intreastiong novel. It's about a future society where humans are born literally in test tubes and are divided into social classes.The highest class is the alpha and the lowest is the epsilon. After being divided into a class babies are "conditioned", often painfully, in order to have personalities and intellect according to their class. A type of brainwashing in a way. In this world, everyone in  their social class is more or less the same except for a man named Berand Marx. Benard is in the highest social class, alphas, but feels like an outsider because he does not look like one. Also in this utopia there seems to almmost be a religous following of Henty Ford. This may be linked to the fact that he started assembly lines and it seems that humans are being created on them.
   All in all, I like this book so far. It makes me think of the future of the world one hundread or two hundread years from now. At first it seems perfect, except that humans are made in test tubes. There seems to be no war, poverty or violence but when i read on I started to see the flaws. Such as using predestination to determine who a person is going to be. The philosophy that everyone belongs to everyone also disturbs me because there are no monogamous relationships and no real emotional bonds. Which makes me wonder human relationships will change over the years.