Themes and motifs brainstorm

One of the themes or motifs in the story is commercial advertisement and brands. Throughout the entire book Cayce encounters all of these different logos, brands, and advertisement, which is present in all of her surroundings. She is highly sensitive to these brand names and logos and seems to have an allergic-like reaction whenever she sees the Michelin man. Through Cayce’s perspective, we become more aware of the world’s globalization and commercialization. With billboards and logos at every corner, it almost feels like a nightmare for Cayce. Ironically, her job is to spend time around all of these brands and logos to learn about the fashion trend. Cayce’s job is to find out new fashion trends so that blue ante can tailor their products to sell more. Blue ante has even gone as far as hiring Magda to start new trends so that people would watch a certain movie or buy a certain product. All Magda has to do is simply talk to someone at a bar and mention something like a movie and that will cause that person to either watch that movie or bring it up in another conversation with someone else, thus starting a new trend. When Cayce reaches Tokyo, we see that commercialization has reached to far corners of the world and that it is almost everywhere. Gibson shows us that originality is lost when all businesses seem to care about is using advertisement to sell their products.

Another theme or motif in the story is globalization. Everything is modern now. In Tokyo, you get large skyscrapers with advertisements and electric billboards everywhere, which isn’t unfamiliar where Cayce comes from. Japan is depicted as an ultra-modern country, which really isn’t that much different from the rest of the world. Brands that can be found in Japan can be found in other parts of the world as well, like hello kitty.  Everyone uses cell phones and computers and everyone is connected to each other online. We also get characters from different ethnic backgrounds like Boone and Voytek. The world is basically becoming more uniform and that comes with good things and bad things. The world is more connected and similar, but there is a loss of cultural identity and originality.  Eventually, when the entire world is globalized and communications between one end of the globe to the other become effortless, the barriers that keep cultural identities distinct will come down, creating a single super-culture of brands, advertisement, and consumerism.  

A rose for emily

If the story were to change from first person plural to first person singular by Tobe or Homer, a lot of the subtleties in the story involving Emily’s life would become clearer. The biggest change to the story is the addition of all the details and events that would have happened over the course of Emily’s life. Since Emily so secretive, we can only infer so much about her story from the account of the townspeople, who barely even know her personally. If we see through the eyes of her lover, who is homer, we’ll get to see much more of the intimacy between the characters and what went wrong in their relationship. If we see through the eyes of Tobe, we get to see a little less of the relationship since he isn’t as involved in the story as Homer is. However, Tobe’s story would probably be more reliable since he isn’t directly involved with Emily’s love life but he does get to see what’s going on inside the house. Therefore, Tobe’s account of the story would reveal more about Emily’s life than the first person plural point of view but less than Homer’s point of view in the story. However, since we’ll seeing through the eyes of one character that happens to be more involved in the story’s plot, we’ll also get information that is skewed because of the character’s biases or beliefs. The events that unfold in the story thus because less reliable since we cannot trust the character to tell the truth or present information in an unbiased manner. The townspeople on the other hand are merely spectators and take almost no part in the story. Therefore, they have little reason to lie or be biased. I think writing this story from a different point of view would change the theme of this story because some of the important information in the story is lost when we see through the eyes of Tobe or Homer. For example, Tobe might not have known about the murder and Homer might have been largely unaware of what is in store for him. In the first plural point of view, it is clear that Homer is murdered and that Emily’s killing of Homer is premeditated. Thus, Faulkner gives only enough information so that the readers can fill in the blanks and determine the theme of the story for themselves.

All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace

             The poem “all watched over by machines of loving grace” is anti-technology and written with a satiric tone.  For instance, in the second paragraph, Richard Brautigan writes, “I like to think…of a cybernetic forest filled with pines and electronics where deer stroll peacefully past computers as if they were flowers with spinning blossoms.” The first thing that comes to mind is how ridiculous and absurd this scene is. Historically, nature and technology have never gotten along or coexisted for a very long time. When we think of nature and technology today, we don’t usually think of a deer strolling past a computer in the forest. We think of pollution and sick animals or an oil spill and an ocean animal covered in black goo. The words “spinning blossoms” adds even more absurdity to the scene. It’s almost as if he were trying, “Nature and technology could get along…if we were living in land of the unicorns!” Brautigan writes the words “programming harmony” to give us a clue that this harmony described is fake or synthetic. The fact that this poem is so optimistically pro-technology when read literally that it should hint to the reader that Brautigan is being sarcastic. The last line of the poem plays even more on this optimism of “everything’s fine and dandy” and that the world is becoming a better place. Finally the poem ends with “all watched over by machines of loving grace.” If anyone has ever watched any contemporary movies, he/she would know that in contemporary culture, machines are often depicted as the instruments of apocalyptic scenarios. Movies like The Terminator where cyborgs or robots from the future try to exterminate all of humanity is only one of many other examples. In authoritarian scenarios, technology is often used to spy on people. The classic novel 1984, is a great example of this. To call machines “loving” when contemporary culture has labeled machines as an instrument of doom and destruction is oxymoronic.

On the other hand, this poem could be interpreted as pro-technology. For instance, the first paragraph where it says, “a cybernetic meadow where mammals and computers live together in mutually programming harmony” tells us that nature and technology can get along. Humans are mammals after all and technology has provided people with better and easier lives. Technology, which was created by people, is intended to be used by people. Therefore, there is a harmony. Technology needs to be used otherwise it isn’t technology (ex. a sharp stone isn’t technology until it is used  to cut something) and humans have better lives. In the last paragraph, it talks about how people will be joined back to nature and be free of their labor because of technology. People today are free of labor for many different jobs that had to be done when technology was primitive. For instance we no longer have to hunt for food or walk to get somewhere. Being back to nature can mean being free from labor or responsibilities, which technology can provide, though not completely, but perhaps in the future. Machines are loving perhaps because people try to use technology for the greater good, for instance, making lives easier, feeding the poor (genetically modified foods, transportation of food to poorer countries), or defending a nation (though in this case technology is used to kill).

Of the two arguments, I’m going to have to say that the anti-technology side of the argument sounds much more convincing. All the evidence for that side of the argument just fits a lot better. Besides, Brautigan has been known for being anti-technology and writing satiric poems. One thing that the pro-technology side can’t explain is the second paragraph, because it is just way too absurd. Everything explained by the pro-technology argument can be countered by anti-technology argument. For instance, the paragraph where it talks about people going back to nature and being relieved of their labor sounds very convincingly pro-technology. However, Einstein once said “I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth—rocks!” In this case, humans have been “bombed back to the stone age,” therefore humans will be back with nature. We are also “free of our labors” because ever since technology has grown, people’s responsibilities and jobs have grown even more. In the end, Brautigan is trying to say the technology will eventually destroy humanity. With that said, I rest my case.