An Active Choice

What is poetry? I think poetry is what you make of it. Yes, there are certain literary devices found in poetry and you can't just make up any crazy meaning you want for a poem, but a lot of what poetry is comes from within. Unlike all prose, all poetry is supposed to make you feel something. When you're done reading a poem you shouldn't feel neutral. Of course sometimes you do and that's simply a sign of a bad connection with the speaker. People read poetry for numerous reasons. It can be calming, it can be happy, it can even be tragic. All of these are emotions. People want to feel when they read. Sometimes people are forced to read poetry and this is when you're least likely to actually gain anything from the works. It is an active decision to read poetry. You cannot passively read a poem and expect for you to receive anything in return. You have to give something back. You have to let your walls down and hand over a vulnerable side of yourself. Poetry touches on raw emotions. You need to be open to these emotions, good or bad, for poetry to have a lasting impact on you. This is what makes poetry so valuable. In today's society, we too often find ourselves loosing our emotions to social networking. You can tweet "so so so excited" while sitting there and feeling nothing at all. We reply to texts with an "lol" or "hahahaha" when expected not when we actually find it funny, the world is slowly losing real, raw emotion. Poetry, when a reader allows it to, gives it back to us. 

Satirical Tools

Candide has a very whimsical and lighthearted feeling to it. However, this feeling and mood is starkly different than the actual happenings in the novel. Candide is very dark and twisted when you look only at the events that occur throughout the story. I think that Voltaire uses a lighthearted approach to discuss terrible things as a satirical tool. It makes the writing almost more sarcastic and makes it clearer he is mocking something. Voltaire also uses exaggeration and incongruity throughout the novel. I believe that exaggeration is the most effective of the three. It is obvious that Candide should be dead and a few of the characters have already died and then found a way to come back to life. The exaggeration of everyone's life story makes it obvious to readers that this is a satirical piece. The exaggeration forces reader to re-examine the philosophy of optimism presented by Panglossian and Candide. It makes you question how reasonable it actually is

For Better or for Worse

Candide has grown up his entire life being told that everything happens for a reason in this best possible of all worlds. To be completely honest I find that there is some truth to this statement, at least in my own opinion. However, there is one major difference that sets my belief aside from Candide’s and his tutor Pangloss’s. I believe that everything happens for a reason, but that not all those reasons are for the best. The human life is filled with actions and consequences. While the word “consequence” usually carries a negative connotation with it, I use it in this case simply to describe a result that has occurred from a previous action. The novel Candide is a series of actions and consequences. Candide does a series of questionable actions, like killing a man or two (or really three), and each of these actions are met with some sort of result. The most common consequence is that Candide is forced to run around the entire world away from someone or something. It’s an important lesson in anyone’s life: if you kill a man, you will be chased down. Or if we are looking at the overall picture here: If you do something wrong, there will be repercussions. Pangloss always told Candide that everything that happens has a positive side to it. While this would be a nice philosophy in an entirely utopian society, I can’t seem to entirely wrap my head around it. Yes, things happen for a reason, but sometimes they happen for the worse, not the better.

Closure

The ending of Cry, the Beloved Country is eloquently written and very moving. With almost all books, readers are left wanting more. There's always one last question, one last thought. In this novel I can't help but wonder what was said in Absolom's last letter. What were a guilty son's last words. Was he sorry? I think we already established he was, but was there some better insight into what happened. I wander if he grew angry at his cousin and Johannes. They were let off free. I know if I was in his position I would be furious. For some reason, I don't think he was angry. I believe that Absolom's last letter was one of comfort for his father and mother. It would be the last thing he could give them. He may have told them that his actions were not due to a poor upbringing by his parents. However, readers will never know. I think that Paton did this on purpose. It gave closure to Absolom's character, yet didn't do so fully. Kumalo and his wife will never fully have closure. Their only son murdered another man and lost his life as the consequence. Readers aren't given full closure. We are able to understand his parents just a little better now. 

Movie vs. Book

Cry, the Beloved Country the novel and it's movie form have many similarities. Overall, I would say that the book is much better than the movie. I feel that the film version strayed away from the original intentions of the book too much. I understand that literature is open to many interpretations, but one of the main themes of the novel was not touched upon at all. The land dying, just as the tribal culture is, was never talked about. I also think that the movie was made to be more politically minded than the book. They focused more on the racial discrimination and less on the new generation entering the modern world and leaving behind simpler times. I really liked Jarvis's character in the novel. However, I strongly disliked him in the movie. He was angrier, ruder, and more racist in the film. The film also missed small nuances that had bigger meanings behind them. Jarvis helps Kumalo up in the movie, something that was not done in the book. As insignificant as this sounds, it was a key part of the book. It showed the subtle tensions between races. For a movie that was made to show these political issues, it ruined an important scene. In my opinion, the books Cry, the Beloved Country was much better than it's movie version. 

Absalom's Sentence

Absalom Kumalo was sentenced to death for killing Arthur Jarvis. I think this is unfair. The criminal justice system is meant to help people not only punish. He committed an awful crime, one that one can never take back. Still, he is human. Killing one man for the death of another does not fix the original problem. Arthur is dead. There is nothing you can do about that. Killing Absalom will not help the situation. I fully believe he deserves to be locked up for the rest of his life, but I don’t believe he should be sentenced to death. How will that help? What will that do? He clearly is very remorseful about his actions. He didn’t lie to the court. He should be given the opportunity to live and make up for his terrible deed. I am not saying that what Absalom did was right by any means. I am only stating that he shouldn’t be killed for it. He was a scared young man who got caught up in the wrong crowd. He murdered a man. There is no denying that and there is no excuse for that either. However, without the influence of his cousin he may have never been in the situation. I think some blame needs to be put on Johannes and Matthew. They were there when the crime occurred. They were accomplices. They should not have been let go with no sentence. Absalom does not deserve to be the only one to pay for this mistake. 

A Good Man

James Jarvis and Stephen Kumalo lives in the novel Cry the Beloved Country are parallel. Both have sons that they haven’t entirely connected with.  Absalom and Arthur were involved with politics in a way that their fathers never would have been. Most importantly, both Jarvis and Kumalo lost their sons. Absalom killed Arthur and for this deed Absalom was sentenced to death. Still, Mr. Jarvis was civil with Stephen Kumalo when they met each other. It would have been very easy for James to blame Stephen for Absalom’s actions. He could have gotten angry and aggressive. Instead he was reserved but not harsh. I think this tells a lot of his character. He is a good man. His political beliefs prior to his son’s death may have indicated otherwise, but those I believe were formed out of ignorance. He was not fully aware of the situation. Like Stephen Kumalo, he was happy with the quiet life of the countryside. He liked the way things were. People fear change. They fear the unknown, and you cannot blame people for their thoughts born from this fear. James Jarvis is a good man.