One and the Same

"Well, Christmas is upon us once again", as the great Charlie Brown once said. That also means that everyone is playing Christmas music everywhere, in the stores, in the streets, in homes, everywhere. One song and video in particular stood out to me: David Bowie and Bing Crosby singing a medley of "Little Drummer Boy" and "Peace on Earth." It is quite obvious why this performance stood out to me, just from the names of the performers, but the entire pretense of the song houses a deeper meaning than just the fact two legends are performing a song together.

Bing Crosby made his fame in the thirties and forties with his music known today as big band music or as a "crooner," with songs such as "White Christmas," "Baby, It's Cold Outside," and "Danny Boy," while David Bowie made his fame as a glam rocker in the seventies and eighties, with songs such as "Suffragette City," "Let's Dance," and "Heroes," basically the parallel opposite of Crosby. What makes this performance so interesting lies within the mutual respect that the two singers have for each other, despite one being old and the other being relatively modern. Despite the age differences, the singers represented popular music at their time in the world, and even though they may have different mediums to their music, both singers are more alike than most people could see from their music.

By the singers coming together and collaborating, they showed how, even with vast differences, people can come together and work together and respect each other. Now, I don't want to come off as one of those crazy people saying, "no more trouble, no more wars, love for everyone," because that probably is not possible, but this performance showed how different age groups, or countries, or ethnicities can come together and work with each other. The way that Bing Crosby and David Bowie blend the Christmas standards using their characteristic voices unveils the songs in a new, slightly contradictory light, almost like, "What is this? I don't know how to explain the sounds I am hearing!" But maybe this fact is why the song has endured over the years.

The symbolic meaning of the performance gives anyone who watches the video or hears the song a feeling of hope that one day the world will get over themselves and work together. Wait, I just found another of the meanings of Christmas; Bring on the holiday special.

Good Versus Evil: A cliche or a reality?

Good and Evil. Light and Dark. All throughout books, throughout movies, throughout just about any form of media in the world, the "good guys" and the "bad guys" face off in an epic showdown to decide the fate of the world. Most stories of any kind that are written today involve a fairly clear cut good and bad, where the victory of one side is the exact opposite of what the outcome would have been if the other side had won. But is this the way in the real world? Usually, the world is not completely black and white. There are some gray areas in life, where the outcome of one side winning is the same as if the other side had won. The real contest is to discover where these areas are and how to make the right decisions.

Most media buys into the cliched version of good and evil- the heroes have to accomplish an impossible task against all odds, and, if not, the whole world will fall into chaos and suffering. In The Lord of the Rings, Frodo has to destroy the One Ring, or Sauron will rise to power again and enslave Middle Earth; In Star Wars, Luke Skywalker has to defeat the Emperor to bring balance to the Force, otherwise the Empire will remain in power and the Rebels are doomed; Batman has to stop the Joker because many people will be killed, and on and on. It is fairly easy to tell who the good guys and who the bad guys are in these situations, but maybe not as easy in reality.

Is a revolution to overthrow an incompetent ruler justified when the new rulers use the exact same techniques as the previous ruler to maintain order? Is someone who saves a child from a burning building doing a good deed if they set the fire in the first place? Numerous times police shootings get caught up in this scenario. The police do their job and have to take a drastic measure to keep others safe, but all of the people who love to stir up trouble cry foul and say that the police should be charged for hurting the criminal. They did a wrong to do a right. Wars are also another gray area. Each side usually has their own agenda for coming into the war, but the reasons may be to gain more resources or one side said that the other sides ruler smelled funny. The reasons are not always the cut and dry, "They are evil; We are good, so let's stop them before the world ends." Each group may say that they are doing good and that the other side is evil, therefore needing to be stopped, but both sides may threaten to cross the treacherous bridge between right and wrong.

One of the best examples of toeing the line while trying to deliver justice and do what is right occurs in The Dark Knight. One of the key themes in the movie is how much you can do to accomplish what is right before you begin to become what you are trying to stop. There seems to be a limit where good becomes evil and everything becomes very hazy, with both sides coming together. To find the Joker, Batman has to use high-tech satellites and spy cameras to search Gotham City, violating the privacy of everyone in the city and certainly breaking a few laws. But it was all done to catch a killer. Anything done in the name of good can be done in the name of evil I suppose. Sounds very cliched, but is often true, especially in the real world.

While there may not be any true right or wrong in the world, there are some decisions that are more right or more wrong than others. Saving someone from dying is usually a good decision to make in any scenario, with trying to kill the person is usually the wrong choice to make in a situation. The only problem is that the world is not completely black or completely white, but has different tones and meanings. So, yes, good versus evil is a cliche, but is still a very enjoyable one at that. If all of life's problems could be solved by throwing a ring into a volcano, the world would be a much easier place to live. But nothing is ever that simple, making the world we live in the world it is.

You and Me: Two Sides to Every Story

A common occurrence in most trials is the presence of more than one story. The victim tells one story, and the defendant tells another version of the story. The entire situation becomes a mess, with the jury trying to figure out who is telling the truth. A case of two conflicting stories occurred in the legend of Beowulf. After seeing the movie Beowulf and then reading Grendel by John Gardner, I found two different stories as to how Beowulf defeated Grendel. While there were some similarities, the stories actually went farther into why the confrontation occurred and how it was finished.

In Beowulf, Grendel was portrayed as a mindless demon and killing machine, who's sole purpose seemed to be the destruction of Hrothgar's kingdom and mead hall. Grendel attacked nearly every night, just to slaughter Hrothgar's men and cause destruction, with senseless abandon. But this was not the case in Grendel. The first time Grendel went to the hall, he was actually curious, like a child would be in this case. He tries to peacefully join the people at the hall, but, because of his hideous appearance, they attacked him, making Grendel retaliate. Grendel actually feels remorse because of the killings, at least until he speaks to a dragon, who tells him that humans are stupid, senseless creatures who should be destroyed. Grendel doesn't believe this, until he witnesses the people fighting a war. He is appalled by the senseless death they cause, just to gain more gold. Something in Grendel's mind finally snaps, and he makes it his mission to terrorize the people at the hall, to show them that they are monsters just like they think he is. The difference in the reasons for Grendel's killings shapes the views of Grendel by the people. In one, he is a monster; in the other, almost like a teacher trying to show the people the error of their ways. It almost creates pity for Grendel, like he was misunderstood, similar to Frankenstein's monster.

Another example of conflicting stories in Beowulf and Grendel were how Grendel was defeated. In the movie, Grendel attacked the hall and killed a few of the men there, before Beowulf fought him, and defeated him by simply overpowering him. Beowulf tore off Grendel's arm and then began to tell everyone how he defeated the monster. Because most of the people at the hall who saw the battle were either dead or Beowulf's own followers, everyone believed him. In Grendel, however, the story of the battle was different. Grendel snuck up on the hall that night and killed only one man, who was sleeping at the time, before Beowulf attacked him. Using surprise, he caught Grendel off guard and got a good lock on Grendel's arm. Then, to make matters worse, Grendel slipped on the blood of the man he had killed, letting Beowulf gain the upper hand. Despite Grendel's pleas for mercy, Beowulf twisted Grendel's arm off literally, and Grendel escaped into the woods to die. So, one account says that Beowulf out-manned Grendel, while another says that Beowulf used treachery. No one will be able to know which story is true because there were not very many people to witness the battle, and each side will stick to their own story.

This situation reminds me of a certain team that we play in basketball. The team thinks that they are unstoppable and can't be beat, but this usually only occurs at home. The rest of the time, they are fair game. The teams that play them know that the biased officiating is what gives them this advantage at home, while the team thinks they are just that good. Without fair officiating at their home court, the team can not prove whether or not they are that good, or if they are just cheaters.

Well, the legend of Beowulf will forever be somewhat controversial in my mind, but it also gives a new dimension to the story. Was Grendel truly the villain of this story? Or was he just extremely misunderstood? Either way I did enjoy the movie and book, so it all works out for someone in the end.

Come Together: the Dangers of DNA

Very recently I read the book Watchers by Dean Koontz, and the story caused me to think. With all of the new discoveries being made today, could the situation of making a super intelligent dog or a blood-thirsty monkey-beast ever happen. Already there are many tests being done to search for ways rearranging DNA can help cure patients of life-threatening diseases, but people may not be content at just solving this problem. While the possibilities of this happening are pretty slim, there is always the chance that it may happen. So, today I am going to take a look into the mysterious world of DNA research and the high points and pitfalls of the research.

The first point I will be looking at today is the possible benefits of the research, symbolized by the dog from the book, named Einstein. Einstein is a golden retriever, who has been genetically altered to have the same level of intelligence as a human being, but still looks like a normal dog. Einstein was created to function sort-of as a furry spy, for example, to be given to a rival countries leader, who would not expect a dog to have the intelligence to be a spy, and have the dog steal the countries secrets. That is the most intense of the tasks the dog would have to perform, with the least intense being a great source of entertainment at parties. Einstein's intelligence was upgraded by placing the genes that would most likely increase the dogs intelligence without causing physical mutation into his genetic code, and by also deleting the genes that would limit his intelligence, over the course of several generations. Einstein was one part of a project called the Francis Project, and was considered the success of the project. All the workers loved Einstein and treated him with the best care they could give him. The possibility of a super smart dog both intrigues me and frightens me. While it would be really cool to have a dog that was intelligent enough to understand a person and have a conversation with them, I would really hate it if I was struggling with my homework and my dog came in and did it for me. There are also other practical uses beyond the coolness factor. An extremely smart dog could be even better seeing eye dogs, being able to think with more than just what they have been taught, to help people who are being rehabilitated for illnesses, or to even help the military when they go into dangerous areas and to help locate enemies. The increased intelligence also could give the dog a moral compass, with the dog being able to differentiate between right and wrong, leading to the dog making better decisions for the situation, possibly saving someones life or helping to stop crimes. The possibilities are endless, with many benefits possible. If a dog like Einstein could be created, then possibly all inheritable diseases, like cystic fibrosis and certain types of cancers, could be all but eliminated from a person's DNA over time.

Like all risks, with a good side, there must be a bad side. Let me introduce the bad side, also known as The Outsider. Where Einstein represented everything that was good and a success with the Francis project, The Outsider was the failure and knew it. Genetically altered like Einstein, The Outsider went through many of the same procedures as Einstein to increase his intelligence, but mutations were encouraged. The Outsider was bred to be a killing machine, and mutations including razor-sharp claws, over sized jaw, and long multi-jointed arms helped it to accomplish this. The mutations also gave it a grotesque appearance that made me think of Grendel in Beowulf when I imagined it. The Outsider knew it was ugly and was feared by the scientists who created him, but he also knew that the scientists loved Einstein. This knowledge gave The Outsider a unquenchable desire to do nothing but kill Einstein, causing many of the situations in the book. This shows that there are also negative consequences to DNA research: if you don't arrange the genes right, a monster that wants to kill you could be created. The possible risks are not worth the benefits in some cases, like this. The Outsider was created to help soldiers in war, but if it went wild, like it did in the book, how could anyone be sure that it wouldn't kill its allies? Similarly, if the DNA research was used to stop one disease, it could possibly make another disease more incurable or even deadlier. These are the questions that researcher have to ask themselves when thinking about the possibilities of DNA research.

Science can build up a civilization and make it great or it can become its downfall. With all of the possible risks and benefits of DNA research, the call on whether to explore and use it or not is an extremely delicate issue in today's world. Watchers showed a good picture of the possibilities of the research and also the risks of the research, while also being a good story. Just keep what I've written in mind if you read it. I really wish I could just read a book without thinking about it anymore.

Going Down: The possibility of symbolism in literature

Like many people this summer, a few weeks ago I went to the movie theater and saw Pixar's Toy Story 3. The Toy Story movies were a big part of my childhood, and I was glad that the third movie did not let me down in any way. The only thing that kept jumping out at me was how the movie seemed to have an undercurrent message, which could be summed up like this: the more you jumped into the plot of the movie, the more it seemed like the toys were going farther and farther into Hell. Call me crazy if you wish, but I 'm onto something here. I also noticed several comparisons to the novel Deliverance by James Dickey, that almost parallel the events in Toy Story 3.

First off, in Toy Story 3, the toys were all going to a place that they did not know anything about (Sunnyside Day Care) and were expecting to have a great adventure, where more kids could play with them. Their dreams seemed to come true as they were welcomed whole-heartily into the day care by the other toys, and were assigned to a room to wait for the kids, despite the warnings by Woody that they had to get back home to Andy. They waited excitedly for the kids, but their first warning that something was amiss was the fact that all the other toys were hiding when the kids came back. Much of this is true in Deliverance, mainly in how Ed, Lewis, Bobby, and Drew all had no idea what was down the river, but wanted to have an adventure over a weekend. Every time they saw another person on their way to the river, the question was always "Why are you wanting to go down there if you don't know what's down there?" almost as if they knew something but didn't know how to tell the poor city folk. Woody and the locals were actually similar to each other by the fact that they each warn the groups, but the groups are so in tune to what they think they want that they do not listen. But the group didn't listen to them, and went on to their trip. When they reached the river, they were surprised at how calm and beautiful it looks, and began their trip. One warning sign that I noticed was how the river began to get swifter and have more obstacles in it, such as rocks and trash from farmers and the people of the area. In the movie, the toys figure out why the other toys were hiding, as they are knocked around and generally abused by the toddlers who don't know how to play with them any other way. The river party also comes to a crashing halt as Ed and Bobby are attacked by two of the hillbillies that live close to the river. The toys and the river party then quickly figure out that they received much more than they bargained for. They also act quickly to remedy the situations, the toys by sending Buzz out to talk to Lotso, the "leader" of Sunnyside, about a transfer, and Ed and Bobby being rescued by Lewis, who kills one of the hillbillies. Both of these events signal each group's beginning descent into a figurative Hell.

Next, both groups thought that they had solved their problems by their first actions, but they were unfortunately wrong. In Deliverance, after Lewis kills the hillbilly, the group gets back on their journey, only this time they are trying to get down river to find a way back to civilization. The group is traveling down the river, when suddenly Drew is shot by someone, causing panic and the canoes to capsize. They manage to make it out of the river, but not before going through a set of rapids that causes Lewis to break his leg and a canoe to be lost. A bad situation goes suddenly from bad to worse when the survivors realize that the other hillbilly that was not killed was the one who was shooting at them. Ed decides that they are in a bad situation and the only way to get himself, Bobby, and Lewis to safety, is to find the hillbilly and kill him before he can get to them. Not only does this decision cause Ed to do things he never thought he would do and make him play a deadly game of cat and mouse with a murderer, but he also learns that this is how the people in the hills did everything and that he is also becoming like them, almost like he is figuratively going into the very depths of Hell in order to survive. In Toy Story 3, the toys learn that the whole day care system revolves around the new toys being sent to the younger kids, to keep Lotso and the other older toys from being broken. To preserve this system, Lotso and the other toys capture Buzz and reprogram him to do what they want him to do, which involves locking the other toys in toy boxes each night. Woody, who was taken home by a little girl who's mother works at Sunnyside, learns from the other toys there about the truth about Sunnyside and Lotso, and begins to form a plan to get in and rescue his friends. Woody returns to Sunnyside, and like Ed, forms a risky plan to get everyone out safely. He also learns about why the Sunnyside hierarchy is set up the way it is, and it shocked me that it seemed like the more you learned about Sunnyside, the farther it did seem to descend into Hell, with the corruption and suffering increasing with every turn.

By the end of both the book and the movie, the symbolism of Hell seemed to get stronger. In Toy Story 3, the plot came to its climax as the toys were about to escape from Sunnyside, only to then confront Lotso and his cronies. All Lotso has to do is give the word and the toys will be thrown into the dumpster and be lost forever. But Woody has the element of surprise and information, revealing to Lotso's toys how he used them to cover up the feelings of. abandonment and anger he has carried for years. The other toys realize that they have been used and proceed to throw Lotso into the dumpster. The dumpster is then emptied by the garbage truck that pulls up, and Woody and the other toys fall in too. They then go to the dump and have to escape from the furnace that is burning up all the garbage, which looked a lot like a portal into Hell. All seemed lost and it looked like everything they had went through was for nothing until a little "divine intervention" saved them. In Deliverance, Ed scaled the cliffside and searched until he found a place where he thought that the remaining hilllbilly could possibly come to, and waited for him. The hillbilly came and Ed suprised him and killed him, beginning the cover ups that would have to take place to keep everything a secret. This seemed to be the final step into Hell that they took, with having to lie and hide the bodies of the hillbillies and their friend in the river to cover up everyone's sin. Sin to cover up sin. But after all this was done, the group set out down the seemingly endless river and found a bridge to cross up to and escape from everything the river stood for, almost like being pulled out of Hell and being saved.

This is the end of my comparisons about the symbolism in Toy Story 3 and Deliverance. Usually, many great stories have hidden meanings and it is interesting to discover these. I guess it is some aftereffect of being in advanced English for a few years. Also, an interesting tidbit to note is that Ned Beatey was in both the movie version of Deliverance and Toy Story 3. Coincidence? I think not.