Monday, August 5, 2019
Nanlibre si Jimmy
Wednesday, October 31, 2018
Ang Pagkamatay ng Isang Bayani
Saturday, May 5, 2018
What if the Infinity Stones are actually the Silmarils?
Hahahaha yeah. It sounds really ridiculous. This post is not about that though.
I just read that previous post on how Pulp Fiction is actually an extension of The Silmarillion. For all its worth, most of the explanations of the author of the post fits well with what's inside of Tolkien's tome: the briefcase containing one of the Silmarils and Jules's famous bible quote capturing one of the passages in The Silmarillion. Of course there are lots of explanation that are a bit of a stretch: like Mia being a Maiar simply because of the similarities of the name, compounded to that is the fact that she survived being overdose, an evidence that she is immortal (for some reason). However, no matter how ridiculous it sounds, the post tells us that Pulp Fiction contains some likeness with The Silmarillion, and I think this is because of what we call "intertextuality" in fiction. Intertextuality is the shaping of meaning of texts (or images, since it can now apply to film) by using them to specifically symbolize the same thing. Because of intertextuality, all forms of fiction are said to be interconnected. Any form of fiction will contain symbolic texts/images that hold the same meaning from another symbolic texts/images from any other book. With this, aw now tend to associate something glowing and gem-like to mean something that holds extreme power, in which The Silmarils, the mysterious thing inside the 666 briefcase, and heck, even the infinity stones, all holds the same essentiality.
TLDR: All forms of fiction are, in a way, connected, because of intertextuality.
Sunday, March 4, 2018
Why Akira is a triumph in manga
Saturday, February 3, 2018
The Fourth Dimension in "From Hell"
William Gull, the book's infamous Jack the Ripper, realized that he killed the wrong woman. He was assigned by the Freemasons to kill the women who know something about a Royal Family member's infidelity. Each night they pick a woman that is part of the conspiracy to be killed and mutilate their body with. William grew fond of the killings that he reaches euphoria which transcends him through space-time every time he does it. After knowing that the woman he killed that was supposed to be the last in his list was the wrong one, he now confessed to his partner in crime, Netley, that he feels like he was in Hell. Williams became so seduced by death that in his last moment, he became a god: someone who felt the ultimate joy from of his own death.
Friday, June 23, 2017
One Hundred Years of Solitude Review
In One Hundred Years of Solitude, Gabriel Garcia Marquez opened the gate to the town of Macondo-- a realm that is under the threat of constant tragedies and bliss of colorful moments. At the center of it all is the Buendia family and their neverending struggle to attain solitude and to escape loneliness. The book is riddled with bizarre events and characters. The storytelling technique implored in this book is what makes Solitude different from the other books that I’ve read. Marquez successfully managed to blur the lines between what is real and what is fantasy that didn't left the reader hanging from the plot. It's amazing how he managed to contour the tone of his writing that it's solemn when the ongoing story is about war, gleeful when it's about death, and dreamlike when it touches something that is real.
The magical realism has a lingering effect on me, that whenever I contemplate this book, I felt like I once lived in Macondo and became one with the Buendias. No book has ever left me in awe as One Hundred Years of Solitude and I can't wait to visit Macondo again for another time.
Saturday, February 25, 2017
Westworld Analysis
In the season finale, Ford then gave the hosts their own free will as a testament to his friendship with Wyatt. The Man in Black was successful in putting a concept of ethics in the hosts' mind. The hosts aren't ignorant beings anymore like Adam and Eve and they got out of the Garden of Eden.
Friday, August 5, 2016
Probability and Sherlock Holmes
I was always concerned on how Sir Arthur Conan Doyle uses probability to justify Sherlock Holmes's evidence in indicting a certain suspect. He always assumes that the more the events there are to imply, the higher the probability for the whole scenario to happen. The truth is actually the opposite. The more uncertain events you're presenting to prove a point, the lower the probability that we get the right conclusion.
For example, if you saw a man with a dirt on his shoe. You could imply from this that the man didn't cleaned his shoe last night. You can imply from this that the man is probably tired last night and doesn't have the time to clean it up. You can imply from this again that he probably have gone to party last night, that's why he didn't get time to clean his shoes. It can go on and on until you land to a conclusion that the man has a dog in his house.
The problem arises when you put implication over another implications. Because you are never sure in every implication, the probability of the whole scenario that the man has a dog will be diminished. To address this problem you need to put another evidence to improve every level of implication. For example you know that it didn't rain morning of that day, then the event of him cleaning his shoe last night will be more probable to happen. Doyle uses this most the time. He puts more evidences in every level of Sherlock's implication. Still, we are uncertain in every conjecture that we devise, no matter what happen, the conclusion that we get that the man has a dog in his house will be more uncertain to happen. It is not the other way around that if we deal with more implications, the higher the certainty for the conclusion to be true, even if you could see that the whole story fits.
Friday, July 29, 2016
Watchmen and Ethics
Almost three decades since it's written, Watchmen, by Alan Moore, still manifests itself as one of the best works of fiction ever written. It established graphic novels as a tool to deliver groundbreaking plot and to convey message that still echoes in the modern times. One particular topic that is still debated by the public is its ending. The ambiguity of Watchmen's final moments left a tinge to the minds of its readers, because it presents the conflict between two opposing bodies of ethics: Deontology/Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism.
In deontology, a person believes that there are certain things that are morally right or wrong based on their nature. In Utilitarianism, a deed being right or wrong depends on the benefit it produces. Since most human beings are not absolute when it comes to detecting right deeds from wrong, no matter how many times we think about who's the person who did the right thing in the end of the novel, our mind is conflicted between Rorschach and Ozymandias. The two characters fully embodies the two ethical concepts, including their strengths and weaknesses.
Rorschach, also known as Walter Kovacs, being the righteous guy of all the Watchmen, sees the horrid thing inflicted by Ozymandias an unjustifiable act even though it is clearly for the better. He didn't compromise because he has his principles; he will never compromise unjustifiable acts even in the face of armagedon. In deontology, it's someone's conscience that imposes what's right and what's wrong, and killing lots of people by implanting horrid images that tend to make them kill themselves is a huge ripple in one's conscience.The problem with him and deontologists is they don't think about the consequences of their act. They have certain rules that if broken, the act a person did is already a wrong thing. They will continue to do the thing that they think is morally correct even though the results will impose a greater threat. At the end of the book, if Rorschach successfully exposed Ozymandias, he will then make the deaths of millions of people all for nothing, amd yet in a way will avenge their fate.
Ozymandias or Adrian Veidt on the other hand, uses logic to know what to do next; measuring what act will impose more happiness to people. In utilitarianism, one good basis on measuring the benefit of a deed, which in the book Ozymandias uses, is the number of people that will benefit from it. Surely, it is better to have a million deaths than seeing the perish of billions of people. Also, the end of the book tells us that his plan really did work in unifying the world. It's the logical thinking that works when you are utilitarian, and most of the time you should not listen in your conscience. There are certain problems in a utilitarian thinking. One problem is the unpredictability of future. There are certain instances that we thought our deeds would improve a situation, but it does not. What if Ozymandias's plan didn't work out to be as he anticipated? One million people just died for a lost cause. Another problem is the limit on measuring the benefit of the deed. When will we stop measuring the happiness that an act would give? This weakness of utilitarianism is highlighted by Dr. Manhattan. He had a conversation with Ozymandias before he disappeared from their world. Adrian asked whether he did the right thing in the end, but Manhattan just replied that nothing ever ends.
A lot of other works also utilizes these two concepts in order to make a big impression to the audience or reader. Another work by Moore, The Killing Joke, has an ambiguous ending that tests Batman's morality and also the readers'. The last page presents a possibility that Batman killed the Joker once and for all. Killing the Joker would violate his principles, yet letting him live may impose greater danger to the public. On the game The Last of Us, in order to create a vaccine for the pandemic tha killed almost all human beings, the Fireflies need to extract the substance inside Ellie's brain that would evidently kill her. Joel is unwilling to sacrifice Ellie, that's why he rescued her from the camp and killed the members of the Fireflies. These kinds of endings works because most of the people are not absolute when it comes to their ethical beliefs. We always use both our conscience and logical thinking that causes imternal debacle in our brain. At the same time, it also tests a person's response whenever s/he encounter dilemmas.
Thursday, July 28, 2016
The Killing Joke ending
I rewatched Battle of the Bastards and a thought came to my mind. It concerns the ending of Alan Moore's The Killing Joke.
At the final moments of the book, we are shown Batman and Joker sharing laughter after the Joker tells a joke about two patients escaping an asylum. And then the laughter of the two abruptly ended. A lot of people suggest that maybe Batman already snapped and ultimately killed his foe by chocking him or breaking his neck.
But it doesn't make any sense if he really killed the Joker. Although there's no questioning that what he did would be for the greater good and Batman had already enough cause to kill him, it still doesn't make any sense. It mirrors Jon Snow's cause in killing Ramsay Bolton. When he saw Sansa, Jon knows that she has the right in deciding Ramsay's fate because she is the one raped repeatedly by him. Gordon has the right in judging the Joker's fate. It's his daughter that was paralyzed and (possibly) raped. It's him that was also sexually assaulted by the Joker and shown pictures of his naked daughter. Yet he still insists in not killing the Joker because like Batman, Gordon has principles and he chooses to uphold them. Before Bats confronted the Joker, Gordon says to Batman that he has to show the Joker that their way works.
That's why Batman killing the Joker doesn't fit his persona and the situation presented by the book. In doing so, he will fail, not only his principles, but also his friendship with Gordon. He should respect Gordon's decision in letting the Joker live, because Gordon has every right in choosing what he will do to the Joker, no matter how bitter that sounds to Batman.