I'm gonna do it, guys. I'm going to write some literary criticism.
I don't know if "literary criticism" fits, though. "Criticism" is too harsh of a word for me, Ellie, small-town pacifist and mild salsa man.
me, solemnly tending to my humble wheat crops
Maybe it's a... literary evaluation. Or a fun literary discussion. Me giving my opinions about a book.
Okay, yeah, literary evaluation is fine.
I truly enjoyed this book, my friends. What can I say? I'll have a hard time picking out some flaws that aren't attributed to me being a big dingus who doesn't know what some words and phrases mean.
I guess the real flaw...
is... me.
Haha. Enough goofs. Let's talk about something else.
One of the most interesting things I read about was the bat crisis. Bats are kinda dying, which sucks. We should talk about bats more. They're good animals.
good ol' brown bat
The bats have a deadly fungus that thrives in cold climates, which is where bats tend to hibernate. We got that fungus from Europe (or so they hypothesize), so I guess Europe is cancelled.
This microblog is inspired by a comment left on my one macroblog.
Anna Yats (hi Anna) wrote a nice message, and ended it with this:
It's funny, because when I made my blog URL I immediately hated myself because I forgot we had to read another book, and the chances of me finding a nonfiction book that could tie into "A Confederacy of Dunces" is pretty slim, from my experience.
But, hey, maybe my audience doesn't have to know that. Maybe I can think of some kinda complicated, pretty stupid explanation for my URL and how it relates to both book.
Let's see what we're working with:
I am a dunce
Nice! I guess that's our answer. Maybe my lack of awareness towards our rapidly dying planet is what makes me such a dunce. That's super cool and fun.
Ah well. I guess my blog URL is just a classic mildly self-depreciating jest. Cool.
Alright, let's try something different this time. I haven't been painting at all lately and I'm not going to break my record now. Haha. God.
As I mentioned in my previous microblog, I'd like to possibly do some literary criticism for this book. I'm not going to do that. Instead, I'd like to focus on one of my favorite passages of the book, which is as follows:
"The reason this book is being written by a hairy biped, rather than a scaly one, has more to do with dinosaurian misfortune than with any particular mammalian virtue. 'There's nothing ammonites were doing wrong,' Landman told me as we packed up the last fossils from the creek and prepared to head back to New York. 'Their hatchlings would have been like plankton, which for all of their existence would have been terrific. What better way to get around and distribute the species? Yet here, in the end, it may well have been their undoing.'"
Here's some context to that. You see, The Sixth Extinction deals with, well extinction. In this chapter, Kolbert specifically discusses the extinction of ammonites during the late Cretaceous period.
So that brings us to the fun part. Why did ammonites die off during this specific extinction, and not nautiluses, another cephalopod that's closely related to the ammonite. There are theories regarding habitat or egg size, but overall the fates of each creature roughly lies in the fact that the ammonites were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Nautiluses didn't have any special apocalypse-deterring traits- they just happened to live in parts of the ocean where the extinction atmosphere was much less toxic than it was where the ammonites dwelled.
(This video doesn't really help anything, just look at how freaky a nautilus is. Imagine swimming in the ocean, living your best life, and seeing this giant piece of cappelletti pasta coming at you. It really keeps me up at night. I miss the ammonites.)
See, when dealing with mass extinction, Kolbert says that Darwinism basically goes out the window- how could any species evolve to adapt to such an extreme, once-in-a-million-years event like extinction? When an extinction happens, it basically turns evolutionary history on its head. It abruptly changes the "rules" of the survival game. And as Kolbert writes, "There's nothing ammonites were doing wrong." But look where we are now.
Basically, everything has a good chance of being screwed and there's nothing evolution can do to help. Nice!
If you read my first microblog for this book, you would know that I am what some people call a massive wimp. I don't want to read about the fact that our world is dying, global warming exists, ocean acidity is rapidly increasing, and the Great Barrier Reef is dying. Naturally, I wasn't pumped to read that we're pretty helpless to the forces of nature.
This passage, though, was the one that got me- especially the first sentence. We're mammals, on Earth, right now, because some other guys just couldn't survive a mass extinction. The butterfly effect and "everything happens for a reason" are two fairly similar things that contribute to one common goal- messing me up.
me, in another timeline
So I guess the main thing about this passage, and why it's my favorite, is that it truly made me think the most out of every other passage in the book. The first sentence that Kolbert uses is an incredibly effective way of putting the reader into a new perspective, which is a massive strength in her writing.
It's difficult to imagine the effects of mass extinctions. It's terrifying to understand that we're basically at the mercy of the universe. At the same time, though, I like facing that fear. The idea of Darwinism being the basis of life except for these few mass extinctions is absolutely insane- it just makes you think what we're doing here and why we're doing it. I'm not sure how existential this book is supposed to make you feel, but it's really making me feel a lot.
In this passage, though, Kolbert and the quote from her colleague (Landman) truly highlights this mysterious helplessness. Ammonites were more well-equipped for survival, and yet succumbed to the late-Cretaceous extinction.
And what an ending sentence! "Yet here, in the end, it may well have been their undoing." That's such a powerful, "make-you-think" moment.
Kolbert's purpose, as I have gathered from what I have read so far, is to address the future impacts of mass extinction. In the part I am currently reading, she is focusing on ocean acidity and how by the year 2100 our oceans will have a severely decreased biodiversity- most creatures would have gone extinct, just like the ammonites, if they're unfortunate enough to be incapable of dealing with the acidity. That's terrifying. But the thing is that it didn't happen yet, and I'd say that some of us just have this feeling that it's a problem for the next few generations, and it's a problem that we shouldn't have to worry about.
say goodbye to these guys
And I bet, had we been alive during the late-Cretaceous, we would have thought the same thing. But look at us now. Ammonites are gone and we're mammals. Does that make sense? Does that have anything to do with anything? I don't know.
I guess a good feeling for this passage is... hopelessness. Ammonites were more than well equipped for surviving! They had small, plankton-like eggs for survival and distribution. But it didn't matter. What's the point of anything, then? We built shelters that provide us with warmth and comfort and we're doing pretty well in these ecosystems but what's the point if a giant catastrophe could just happen. Where am I? A strong suit in Kolbert's writing truly is her ability to make feelings felt. It's a nonfiction book, which I would argue is usually synonymous with boring or lame, but I truly am experiencing a wide range of joy and tragedy from this story. It's enjoyable.
This passage demonstrates a technique that proves to be popular in Kolbert's writing- ending specific sections and chapters with an open ended, "blunt" ending. Take, for example, the passage I am citing here- Kolbert ends with a sentence that provides none of her personal insight. This method of providing a simple, powerful sentence is repeated in (basically) every chapter, which is incredibly effective in giving the reader a chance to fully process what Kolbert is attempting to say.
The threat of a mass extinction is something that people have yet to fully realize and acknowledge- I know I had no idea we were in such a doomed state of existence. Kolbert's writing is powerful. I may not know how exactly Pulitzer books are determined (see microblog 2), but I know for a fact that she deserves it for this eye-opening, amazing story.
Well, I'm more than halfway through the book by now. That's good!
I have to say that I thoroughly enjoy it. It's wonderfully written, and I'm thinking of actually doing some literary criticism for this macroblog.
I'm definitely having more fun with this book that I did with Confederacy, which is surprising considering I don't read a lot of nonfiction and didn't expect to be so invested in, well, a nonfiction book.
Both of my books are Pulitzer prize winners, which got me thinking about how Pulitzer prizes are awarded. As I was reading both of these books, one of them was much better than the other (in my opinion). I don't think I could ever award Pulitzer prizes. It seems so stressful. How do you judge a book? I'm getting overwhelmed just thinking about it.
So I visited www.pulitzer.org for my Pulitzer-related question.
Cool! That doesn't help.
Seriously, that's probably the worst answer they could have given me. By the way, the "How to Enter" and "Administration" page really didn't help, either. It just gave the deadlines for submissions and stuff like that. Thanks, Pulitzer Prize Board.
Ah well. I guess while we're here we can check out some of the other burning Pulitzer prize related questions.
This question haunts me. What it's telling me is that there's just so many people wondering if former president Barack Obama won a Pulitzer Prize that that very question made it to the "Frequently Asked Questions" page of the Pulitzer website. I guess I'm curious, too. Or I was, until I read the answer. But still. What a specific yet intriguing question. Maybe I'm missing something. Was there an Obama Pulitzer Prize thing going on? Pulitzergate?
I looked it up, and someone did win a Pulitzer for a photo of Obama, but I'm not seeing much else.
Cool.
This was a fruitless journey. I am disappointed. I'm disappointed in the Pulitzer Prize Board. I'm disappointed in myself. I'm just. Disappointed.
Well, thanks for staying tuned to this microblog, I guess. It's a downer. Ah well.
I'll start this off by saying that I'm reading The Sixth Extinction by Elizabeth Kolbert.
Choosing this book was strange for me, because of a few main things:
I have never expressed interest in a sooner-than-you-think mass apocalypse
My original plan was to read a book about computers or art history or something
I like to live in blissful ignorance regarding our own mortality and the possibility of an unstoppable extinction
See point 3
And yet I chose to read this. For some reason.
This book basically addresses how we are probably in the midst of the sixth extinction (in case you were confused, that means there have only been about FIVE mass extinctions in the last few half billion years). According to the summary, "This time, the cataclysm is us." What the hell, Elizabeth Kolbert? It talks
Actually, I do know the reason- I want make myself aware. I don't completely know what this book has in store for me, but if it's the crushing existential fear that I think it is, then I am on board with that, because I want to look the possibility of death in the eyes and say "That's bad, but... Not as bad as I thought." Or maybe it will be as bad as I thought- or worse- and I'll end up crying in the next Fun Microblog Post.
Okay, maybe it doesn't exclusively talk about the fall of humanity, but that's not very helpful, either. We're killing all of these animal species which can throw off everything until you and I are dead.
Extinction is so bizarre. I hate how that's a thing that can happen and has been happening. God.
Either way, though, I think it'll be a good outcome for myself. I want to push myself to read and learn about things outside of my comfort zone.
This is way out of my comfort zone, okay? I like to live in peace and ignore all of the awful things that can and apparently probably will happen someday. But I like to stay optimistic!
Hey, the cover was pretty! That's fun, right? Right?
Who knows, maybe this book won't be that bad. Maybe I'll find joy.
So for this one I chose to do the artistic interpretation, because I love freedom and open-ended prompts.
I decided to take advantage of my struggles with analyzing this book, and instead focus on how goofy and ridiculous it is (because that's the cause of my turmoil). From my imagery post, you may recall that this book has a ton of silly metaphors, similes, and just describes things in the strangest way possible. I wanted to highlight this, as it's a massive contributor to the overall tone of the book.
Most of these wacky comparisons are made either by or in reference to Ignatius- and I wanted to show his perspective on the world. This is because a big part of the book is that Ignatius has a very different way of seeing things, due to his arrogance and relatively higher education. He has a much more extensive vocabulary than the rest of the people in New Orleans, leading to a bunch of fascinating descriptions of people, places, and things. Ignatius is a goofy, unlikable character. His main "thing" is how unlikable he is- he is, after all, the genius that the dunces are in confederacy against.
That brings me to setting, too- New Orleans is a crazy city, perfect for the crazy characters that are met throughout the course of the story.
So I thought to myself, "how can I include all of these goofy metaphors in a way that can be fun and also showcase Ignatius's character and setting or whatever?"
But then I got an idea.
There's this one painting that I like a lot- it's called Netherlandish Proverbs and was painted in 1559 by Pieter Bruegel (the Elder). It's just a big painting that illustrates a bunch of Dutch proverbs in a super literal way. It highlights the ridiculousness of language and how humans portray the world.
For example, one Dutch proverb is "To be unable to see the sun shine in the water," which basically means that you can't see the value in someone else's successes.
Bruegel painted a man who literally could not see the sun in water.
Perfect.
And thus I painted a slightly less-great, less-extensive and less-detailed version of this painting, using nothing but the descriptions provided to me by John Kennedy Toole.
It seemed to be a nice way to capture many things.
Ignatius is a wild character, whose great intelligence leads to him perceiving the world and people around him very differently.
New Orleans, as a setting, is wacky. Maybe it doesn't have snake-haired people, but it's still a perfect home for characters that are just as crazy.
The book is funny and ridiculous!
The descriptions contribute to the overall aesthetic of goof that this book provides
(goof is a fun word)
Try to find each metaphor/comparison in the picture. Some are easier to see than others. Well, most of them are pretty easy to find, and if they aren't then it's probably just because of the way that I drew/depicted it. I'm sorry.
Here it is:
The things illustrated are (in no particular order):
"... He was waiting in the warm water in which he wallowed like a pink hippopotamus" (175)
"This, I should have known, was too much for his literal and sausage-like mind" (228)
"Like a hen sitting on one particularly large egg" (232)
"The Gibraltar of wallflowers..." (323)
"Her lacquered curls turned into snakes" (275)
"... sharp Midwestern accents which assailed my delicate eardrums like the sounds of a wheat thresher..." (231)
"... a depraved specimens of mankind who regularly bowl their way to oblivion" (101)
"... Those aquamarine fingernails poised like talons" (372)
"He filled with gas, the sealed valve trapping it just as one pinches the mouth of a balloon" (379)
That's all, really.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book, do not regret reading it, and would recommend it to those of you who are interested in some good, lighthearted goofs.
Hey guys.
Let's talk about my book, huh? How do you feel about that? Good? Cool, thanks.
Since I've been raving about this book so much, why don't I mix it up a bit with some bitter hatred and anger.
I'll be honest, I've been struggling to actually analyze this book. Maybe it's just a personal thing, but I feel as if the comedic tone doesn't go to hide a lot of secrets or deeper meanings- maybe I'm just not an intellectual like Ignatius. I tried to look for symbolism, and I got some in his vast appreciation/hatred for movies, as well as the smoke, but it's been difficult trying to find something that ties into a greater theme.
It's a comedic book, but I'm not saying that excuses its lack of depth. I know it makes some interesting commentary about Ignatius's role in society, as a "genius" in a world of dunces, as well as the parallels between his physical and mental "greatness," but it's not like a Catcher where everything is deep or whatever. I'm in pain.
There's definitely a lot of motifs- the valve, movies, sexuality, etc, but maybe I'm just not seeing something that everyone else can see.
I think it's an interesting story, of course- I've had fun with that. I like his letters with Myrna and his journal entries, where a seemingly calmer Ignatius is seen, as opposed to the harshness of his character in the real world. I hated Ignatius at first, and I still kinda do, but now I'm starting to root for him a bit.
Maybe a theme ties into how Ignatius's over-inflated sense of superiority creates an unlikable character, or something like that. Or how people who are "geniuses" can actually be big dunces. Or have a.... confederacy of dunces against them. Something like that. I don't know.
He's still a jerk to his mom, though. That's frustrating.
It's a funny book- maybe it's not meant to be deeply understood. Maybe it's just burping and cursing and stuff.
I'm just an egg, I guess. We'll keep trying.
Oh, and another thing, there's so many characters. This is probably just a me thing, but I just can't remember that many people. I'm not that bright. There's so much happening at once, y'know? That's just a minor complaint. It's really not that bad.
me trying to remember a character that's been absent from the plot for like eight chapters
are you having fun with this cool reading project?
here i am
hey guys. it's me, ellie. enjoy this collection of blog posts. they're mainly about books, because that's what this blog is for. i hope you can understand.
is... me.
![Pin It](http://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://aconfederacyofellies.blogspot.com/2018/03/nonfiction-microblog-4.html&media=https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiSJss-5KpRPrrsl4r2k0iY7dFr4XfpZcGfdxNq2oQTb_LpCJSEt34v5AWeD83QhFfS3PQlpiSvroJFPKsgwtX_WxIWf2zFHyAs7btg7o2Y-eXZADnEyhkV62NOYCDqGsThJ1SxxSU_Zo4/s72-c/jrgea.png&description=I'm gonna do it, guys. I'm going to write some literary criticism. I don't know if "literary criticism" fits, though...){kind=link}
 wrote a nice message, and ended it with this:Â ...){kind=link}
