Zero History

I was considering my previous blog post about how blank pages represent potential while I thought about the name of the book, Zero History.

As you read the book, it becomes clear that the character, Milgrim, is the character with no history. He cannot remember his past, and the only memories he seems to have are ones that occur over the course of the novel.

Anyways, I looked at this website for symbolic definitions of zero :  http://www.symbolic-meanings.com/2007/11/05/spiritual-meaning-of-number-zero/

According to that site, zero represents potential. It is the shape of a “seed, womb or egg from which pure potential emerges”. It is also the shape of a circle which represents the cycle of life. Shapes associated with the zero’s shape are associated with time; infinity or a clock.

All of this delves deeper into the meaning of the title Zero History. If I had never read the book and had to analyse the title, I would guess that the book would be about a character with a forgotten past who matures over time and achieves his potential in the end.

Book Cover

A Wireless Prison

It is a common misconception among teenagers that a wireless cell phone grants them freedom.

Sure, upon acquiring a cell phone they gain the ability to talk, text, and share media from virtually anywhere, but it is to my belief that cell phones act as somewhat of a leash for your parents. The rational behind this is that once you acquire a cell phone, your parents have a means to reach you 24/7 no matter where you are. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, in fact it can be quite useful if you are in need of help of some sort. However, they are able keep tabs on you as long as you have your cell phone.

This idea, I feel, is represented in Zero History through Milgrim’s Neo phone. Milgrim’s cell phone has a bug in it that allows for Sleight to track him via GPS and listen in to his conversations. Up until Milgrim gets rid of the Neo, he is at Sleights command and mercy and is even followed by one of Sleight’s men.

So really, do self phones give you freedom or do they make you a prisoner and take away your privacy ?

Finding Meaning in What’s Left Out

Throughout the novel Zero History by William Gibson, there is somewhat of a side plot that occurs. Hollis attempts to track down a mysterious clothing brand known as Gabriel Hounds.

What is most interesting about that clothing brand, is the reason for its customers interest. Essentially, customers love the brand because of its sheer mystery. In other words they delight in the absence of its knowledge. Now, this is a concept commonly brought up in class where Mrs. White (http://melaniewhiteblog.wordpress.com) will talk about how meaning is found in what has been left out.

Now, the question is, why are people so attracted to mystery? The reason, illustrated by J.J. Abrams in this TED Talks video, is that the realm of mystery signifies endless possibility, and we are drawn to blank pages because of the thought that something great could be written on it.

Check it out: http://www.ted.com/talks/j_j_abrams_mystery_box.html

J.J. Abrams

 

Coloured by Bias

I’ve been reading the book Zero History by WIlliam Gibson in English class, and I’ve noticed a distinct male bias towards the assumed attitude of women in the novel.

Firstly, Hollis(one of the main characters) struggles to gather the courage to phone her ex-boyfriend after she’s heard about an accident he’s had that worried her. Secondly, Fiona(a less important character) seems to catch feelings for Milgrim(arguably the protagonist) and begins to usher him into sleeping with her, showering with her, and finally she kisses him. All the while, it seemed to me as though Milgrim didn’t understand what was going on.

What I wanted to highlight in both examples is the assumption that it was the females who needed to act first in the relationship. This rubs off as a somewhat delusional fantasy of the author’s perception of the perfect woman.

WIlliam Gibson

To Risk or Not to Risk

 

 

I’ve been thinking about the message of Hamlet’s ‘to be or not to be’ soliloquy.

Essentially, Hamlet is contemplating suicide. However, due to the unknown nature of the afterlife, Hamlet is convinced that mortal suffering is better than whatever may come after death. In other words, since there is no direct answer as to what happens upon death, Hamlet concludes that it is not worth the risk.

If you attempt to apply this to everyday ideas (perhaps those less suggestive than suicide), you will find that Hamlet concludes that it is better to not take risks in life as future cannot be guaranteed. Obviously, the dilemma over taking the risk and not taking it is entirely different than when your life is on the line, however the principle still stands.

My belief, contrary to Hamlet’s, is that life requires risk. If you look at all technological innovations up to this point, they have been discovered because people have ventured into undiscovered territory and uncovered information that people previously knew nothing of. In my opinion, without risk, there is no progress.

A Paradox That Makes Sense

Dating back to the time of which Hamlet’s story took place, a King’s adviser was supposed to be a trustworthy figure. If the adviser was deceptive or misleading, he was killed.

Polonius, the King’s adviser in Hamlet, hires Reynaldo to spy on his son Laertes:

“By indirections find directions out: So, by my former lecture and advice, Shall you my son.”

Not only is Polonius giving the order to make up lies about his son, he clearly has no trust in his son and doesn’t respect his privacy. Is it possible to trust a man who is spying on you?

The very act of having Polonius as the King’s adviser in the play is paradoxical because of this. However, although paradoxical things are generally out of place, it seems to fit perfectly with the plot of Hamlet. The existence of a Ghost, based on the Elizabethan belief, indicated that something was fundamentally wrong with reality.

Why shouldn’t Polonius be anything but a normal adviser to the King?

A Not So Small Change

In english class, we are currently reading Hamlet.

It’s funny how different lines are open to different interpretations. By that I’m referring simply to how the meaning of the line is dependent on how the actor says it. Sentences can have entirely different meanings and set off different emotions with the slight variation of one word.

Take for example Hamlet’s quote to Horatio : “There are more things in heaven and earth; Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

Now read it this way : “There are more things in heaven and earth; Horatio, than are dreamt of in our philosophy.”

Notice the difference? The first one has, what I believe to be, limited meaning in comparison to the second one. It is but a condescension that seems to belittle Horatio’s view of the world.

The second quotation seems more like an open proposition. The use of the word “our” includes Hamlet and refers to every single person in the world, and therefore holds more meaning than if it were to refer only to Horatio.

My point is, once again, it is important to note the slight variations in line interpretations. Slight variances of tongue and tone can hold exponentially different meanings.

Considering the importance of The Overcoat by Nikolai Gogol to the writing of The Namesake by Juhmpa Lahiri, I believe it is possible to draw a line connecting the main characters of both books, and their overcoats.

Nikhil becoming Gogol after his father’s death

For Gogol (The Namesake), his overcoat is not literally an overcoat, but his changed name, Nikhil. An overcoat is used to cover, in this sense Gogol is covering up the truth of his real name because he is too embarrassed by it.

In The Overcoat by Nikolai Gogol, Akaky (the main character) acquires a new overcoat, and with it becomes someone new. He pretends to be someone he is not until that overcoat is lost and he returns to his original status.

(Go to 3:30 if you want to see Akaky and his overcoat)

Similarily, despite the acquisition of his overcoat, Gogol (The Namesake) still remains Gogol to his parents. When his father dies, he returns home and sheds his overcoat, becoming Gogol, rather than Nikhil, once again.

Personally I believe in both cases the the overcoat represents the defiance of fate. It represents the will to go past what has been predetermined for you. However, it appears that fate, in the end, is inescapable in both cases.

The Matrix of your Personality

What creates the self???

The Matrix (which my English class is currently watching) proposes multiple different philosophical theories, one of which is quite interests me.

All the characters in The Matrix live in two separate worlds: the Matrix world, and the real world. Up until the point where they are disconnected from the Matrix, all things that have shaped their virtual identity have been digitally constructed. Once disconnected, it seems as though their virtual personalities carry over into the real world.

Mouse, a character from the movie, illustrated a similar idea when talking about Tasty Wheat :

“You have to wonder: how do the machines know what Tasty Wheat tasted like? Maybe they got it wrong. Maybe what I think Tasty Wheat tasted like actually tasted like oatmeal, or tuna fish. That makes you wonder about a lot of things. You take chicken, for example: maybe they couldn’t figure out what to make chicken taste like, which is why chicken tastes like everything.”

The reason for Mouse’s confusion is that he’s eaten Tasty Wheat, but he hasn’t actually eaten tasty wheat. In The Matrix, personalities are developed and brought into the real world. However, does this mean that these people don’t actually have developed personalities ?

What is it that truly creates your self ?

A Whole New Light

I wanted to bring to light an idea that I had while reading through the first couple chapters in the Namesake. My idea is simply this: Someone’s relationship with an object of significance will greatly affect the significance of that object in their lives.

In Jumpha Lahiri’s The Namesake, Ashoke is ‘saved’ because rescue workers during a train crash noticed pages of The Overcoat by Nikolai Gogol near his body. This event in his life shapes the events of the book as Ashoke believes it was Gogol who had saved his life. This is the reason in which he names his son ‘Gogol’. In this case, the name ‘Gogol’ was so important in Ashoke’s life that he named his son after him, against Bengali culture. 

My theory behind why this significant attachment occurs lies within the traditional value of objects or regular everyday things. Originally, if someone held up a man and asked him to give him all of his valuables, he would quickly do so without though as the value of life is greater than that of the objects he owns. However, once an object has saved a life, it becomes almost as valuable as a human life. It, in essence, granted a human life to live on. As such, the human would grow a strong emotional bond with that object, and it would be a source of inspiration in his/her life.

Near death experiences are something frequently discussed on the internet. To give a vague example, someone may say “[Blank] saved my life!”. Recently, I read a post about how a Dutch man’s Iphone saved his life from a bullet. (http://www.mactrast.com/2012/02/iphone-stops-a-speeding-bullet-saves-owners-life/)

“The victim was in his van when several unknown individuals approached and opened fire. Five bullets were fired, one of which hit the man’s chest. Fortunately, the man’s iPhone was in his                                             shirt pocket. The bullet shattered the iPhone’s glass, but prevented the wound from causing any major injury to the man.”

Can you imagine that? If this happened to me, I wouldn’t care that the Iphone broke, instead I would simply see the Iphone in a whole new way. It would have a special significance to me, and I would likely grow more attached to it than any other phone or material object. It is no surprise, then, that the dutch man decides to stick his Iphone in a special place in his home to remind him of the fragility of life.

The action of putting the Iphone in a special place as well as Ashoke’s naming of his son after his ‘hero’ shows the significance of something in ones life relative with their relationship with that thing. Why didn’t the man put his Iphone in a special place before he almost got killed? Would Gogol have been named Gogol if the train crash had never occurred? The answer is no. An object requires emotional significance before it can become important. Once it acquire’s the value of human life, it will shape it’s owner’s life just as other humans have the ability to influence other people’s everyday lives.

“It is only in the world of objects that we have time and space and selves.” – T.S. Eliot