Tag: review

Fahrenheit 451

“Literature is the most agreeable way of ignoring life”

How can a book like Fahrenheit 451 stay relevant after being published over sixty years ago? It is well known that comedy ages fast due to the shifting culture from generation to generation; however, do allusions in fictional literature have to face the same fate as comedy? Is it the use of universal allusions towards the Bible and mythology that makes Fahrenheit 451 relevant, or is it the timeless debate it ignites over ignorance and dystopian societies?

What purpose do the Bible and religion serve in Fahrenheit 451? Is religion good for society? Was religion portrayed in a positive or negative light in this book? Can anybody use the Bible to fit their purpose? Can it be argued that the pulpy commercialized version of Jesus was only used to control people? Does this bear any resemblance to what Carnegie in the movie Book of Eli tried to do? Is Montag pleased after going through a set of hardships like Job did in the Bible? Does Montag resemble the preacher in Ecclesiastes? Was Montag a successful preacher at spreading literature to others? Was Montag ever able to clear the Tower of Babel in his own head? Is it reasonable to say that religion was destroyed since only the Book of Ecclesiastes was preserved? Do you need to have the entire book for its full meaning to be passed on? Will the Bible ever lose relevance in society? If the Bible or Shakespeare were to be updated to more closely resemble the modern English language, would its meaning be transformed? Would it be ethical to do? Does the King James version of the Bible convey its message exactly the way the original version did? Was anything lost in translations? Does literature have a half-life? Why is it that the older a book is, the harder it is to understand? If that is the case, then why is the Bible still relatively easy to read and understand? Will Montag and the group of professors have to do their own rewriting of the Bible? Is it the wording or meaning behind a work of literature that makes it so meaningful? Does the extent to which its meaning is transformed vary between the Bible and a work of Shakespeare? Would future rewrites of the Bible render the allusions in Fahrenheit 451 indistinguishable?

Is ignorance good? Do we keep ourselves willfully ignorant over what we do not want to deal with? Does ignorance make us happy? Who was happier, Mildred with her artificial family or Montag bearing the burning burden of knowledge? Is knowledge worth more than ignorance and happiness? Is it ethical for the government to keep us ignorant about a situation if it means that we will remain happy? Did the government keep people ignorant about the consequences of war to keep the masses happy or maintain control? Would our government do the same thing? If everyone is ignorant, then who runs the country? Is it even possible to keep everyone as ignorant in the information age as they are in Fahrenheit 451? Does the information age lead to different types of ignorance? Are we in our own ways ignorant to things happening outside of our own bubbles? Is it possible not to be ignorant? What is the difference between willful ignorance and just being ignorant? Were the masses in the book ignorant or willfully ignorant? Why is willful ignorance so dangerous? Does willful ignorance burn away at society’s achievements? How would you measure society’s achievements? If you measure achievement in people’s happiness, then is it better to be ignorant? Could everybody be willfully ignorant? If you chose not to know something, are you really ignorant of it? To what extent does turning your nose to something hinder your knowledge of it? Did Beatty choose to stay ignorant of the benefits of books to rationalize his job? How is Beatty’s ignorance different from the ignorance of the depraved youth in this society? Did Mildred’s friends only cry and get upset at Montag when he read Dover Beach because they wanted to stay ignorant, or was the realization of their ignorance emotionally too much for them? Why is ignorance a universal topic to write about? Will we always have an issue with ignorance?

How long will Fahrenheit 451 stay relevant? Does the book retain its full meaning without any of the allusions making sense? Will we ever win the battle against ignorance? Does knowledge really equate to power or just the illusion of it?

Demon Slayer: Work of Art

Shortly after watching this youtube video by Gigguk, I decided to watch Demon Slayer season one. I was immediately hooked on the anime. There was an emotional story, and above anything else, the artwork and animation were off the charts. I am truly amazed at how far animation has gotten in the last ten years. We went from “cartoons” to stunning works of art. And the amazing thing is that Demon Slayer is not an isolated incident. Other new shounen titles like Jujutsu Kaisen and My Hero Academia continue to push the medium to greater heights.

As Gigguk said in his video, it’s not that Demon Slayer is unique in the genre or has an incredible story; it is that the execution is perfect, and the animation brings it to a whole other level. The anime got me so enthralled that I ended up purchasing the manga just to learn what happens next– since there was just one season released.

The artwork in the manga was also good; Koyoharu Gotouge has a real knack for style. However, the manga can’t really hold a candle to the anime in this case. Not because the manga wasn’t good, it was great, but because the anime was really well executed. Plus, action in manga can sometimes be tough to follow — especially when every demon has a special fighting ability.

After catching up with the manga, I don’t know exactly how I feel about the story as a whole. One part of me wishes that it would run longer since I feel like there are aspects of the story that Gotouge didn’t have time to flesh out. However, on the other hand, I can understand how having this anime run for much longer would make it feel even more repetitive than it already is. The story follows a pattern of: big battle, recovery, training, next battle. Repeat. In each of these cycles, the characters get stronger, and the stakes get larger– typical shounen anime plot. I appreciate how much time the anime spends in the training/recovery phases since it allows for character development that doesn’t feel forced. Bleach suffered since it simply had the characters stuck in continuous battle rather than give them time resting between arcs — but that’s my hot take.

Overall, I would definitely recommend everyone watching Demon Slayer. With the upcoming movie (Mugen Train) release in the US and season two coming out sometime this/next year, I see this anime becoming a mainstream icon.

Here is a funny recap video to watch:

Hunter X Hunter: 1999 Version

After watching the 2011 version of the anime Hunter X Hunter, I was hesitant as to whether or not I should also watch the 1999 version of the anime. With the two adaptations of Fullmetal Alchemist, there was a significant difference in the story — especially at the end. However, with Hunter X Hunter, these adaptations cover the same material in the manga with the 2011 version adapting more arcs.

Nerveless, I ended up watching the 1999 adaptation along with the OVAs that went through the Greed Island arc. Although these versions were near-identical in terms of story, there are still plenty of things in the 1999 version that was not in the 2011 adaptation.

To start the anime, there was about an episode of so of extra content in the 1999 anime going into more detail into Gon’s background before he leaves Whale island. In my opinion, this is great for character development because we are introduced to Kite, and it gives more depth to how Gon knows about his father Gin and why he wants to become a Hunter. In the 2011 edition, you are just sorta told, “yeah, this 12-year-old kid wants to be a Hunter because his dad he never met was”. With the 1999 opening, you get a better idea of why Gon idolizes hunters and why he wants to become one so bad.

The 1999 edition had an additional mission in the hunter arc with the ship and storm. Although it isn’t that missed in the 2011 edition, this mini phase had some great character development. Other than that, many one-off scenes were included in the 1999 edition that wasn’t in the 2011 edition. Stylistically the two shows were vastly different. The 2011 version is very bright and colorful, where 1999 had a darker color palette — typical animation for its time. I enjoyed the 1999 animation because it made me nostalgic for the old Pokémon videos I would watch as a kid. Also, seeing the dated technology in the 1999 version is entertaining.

https://youtu.be/xXjC0gTTfnA

The 1999 version can be weird at times…

I was fine with Killua’s DUB, but it was irking to hear Gon’s voice be so low in the 1999 DUB. No matter how Hisoka came off to you as in the 2011 version, he is definitely 10x creepier in the 1999 version. Plus, there are some out there scenes for a shounen — like the one where Killua watches porn in the hotel room.

https://youtu.be/XWVNSyZes9E

If your not a huge fan of HXH, it probably isn’t worth the time to watch the entire adaptation. But, if you want to check out the content in the 1999 version that isn’t in the 2011 edition, you should at least watch these episodes:

  • E1 – A Boy Setting Out for a Journey x Leaving Behind the Sound of the Wind
  • E11 – Explore x Sports Spirit x Stowaway
  • E12 – Good Boy? x Bad Boy? x Trap
  • E18 – Treasure x Memory x Hotel Room
  • E19 – Separation x Diary x Water Inflow
  • E20 – Giant Wave x Cannon x Huge Rush
  • E47 – Father X Secret x Confession

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip Dick can definitely go down on the list of things you must read to be cultured. This was a short book; however, what it does with those pages, achieves more than several novels that I have read.

This book is popularly known as being the base material for The Blade Runner films. Although the general premise is the same in both the book and movies, there are significant differences between the two. The biggest difference is that the book focuses on a religion called Mercerism. I don’t think focusing on this would have made the movie more interesting; however, it certainly made the book more interesting. Nevertheless, the core discussion of the book revolves around the morality of killing a robot that has human-like consciousness. This discussion is made even more interesting because the main character, a bounty hunter hunting robot, is himself a robot and yet not aware of it.

According to the main character(who is a robot), androids have no empathy making them cold machines that need to be put down. Additionally, he believes that robots don’t have any love for animals -which are held sacred in this post-apocalypse world- and robots won’t do anything to help each other. The test used to determine if someone is a robot measures their reflexes to emotionally stimulating questions. However, this notion of human vs. robot breaks down as the story progresses. If robots don’t have empathy for each other, why is a group of escaped robots protecting each other? If robots can never care for animals, why does the main character spend an absorbent amount of money buying a goat that he spent years dreaming about– to replace his electric sheep.

If robots are empathetic like humans, what rights do we give them? What rights do we give other people? In the book, “specials” were people with mental defects due to the radioactive dust on the earth. These specials were treated as outcasts in society and barred from having kids. Like the androids, the Specials were treated like trash because society views them as inferior to humans. In the book, Mercerism (their religion) suggests that what makes a human is our common plight. To fight adversities by climbing the metaphorical mountain, constantly getting pelted by rocks, yet continue.

At the end of the bounty hunter’s ordeal of killing the newly escaped robots, he ends up questioning his own morality– he is still unaware he himself is an android. Isn’t questioning morality and other philosophical debates the most quintessentially human thing to do?

This Is How You Lose the Time War

Yesterday I finished the book “This is How You Lose the Time War” by Alal El-Mohtar and Max Gladstone. I bought the book on a whim since I’ve heard really good praise on it. I started reading the book, and I was immediately confused for the first ten pages. It was very poetic, yet mysterious and it can catch you off guard if you didn’t at least read the back of the book. Essentially there are two sides of an epic war where each side has the ability to control time and space. The character Red was created by an AI singularity– led by someone called “Commandant”. The other main character is called Blue and is an agent created by an entity called the Garden which is a vast consciousness embedded in all organic beings.

The entire notion of two sides fighting each other through the depths of time and space, vying for a better position is fascinating. This alone could make for a thrilling action or fantasy story. But, instead, this was a poetic book about two star-crossed overs from different sides of this epic battle. Each page pulls you deeper into this mysterious premise and every letter exchanged between these two characters emotionally attaches yourself to the characters.

I feel like this book worked so well since it was in fact different from most other books I have read. A lot of books have poetic phrases, etc, but few compose themselves entirely as poetry. At first, it is confusing yes, but as you go on everything starts to click into place, and the story builds to a magnificent climax at the end. However, I don’t think that this poetic prose of writing would work as well if it was a full-length novel.

The main takeaway from this I believe is that love transcends all boundaries. It didn’t matter that Red and Blue were mortal enemies fighting on different sides of a bloody war, their love still persisted. In the end, Red and Blue are reunited and form their own threads of time-space. Their goal is to forge a place where they could live in unity– despite doing so also means fighting the two sides they defected from. But, that is how you win the time war, together. Does love always win? Does Red and Blue actually win? This book doesn’t offer concrete answers, but at the very least this book suggests that it wasn’t disjoint sides with heterogeneous beliefs that win the time war, it is together we win.

At least, that is what I took out of the book. Beautiful love story. It was a quick read, but well worth it.