IB English Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil Chunk #3 Response

Theme: In Savannah, Everything Changes, Everything Stays the Same

“Six months after his acquittal, Jim Williams sat down at his desk to make plans for his first Christmas party in eight years. He called Lucille Wright and asked her to prepare a low-country banquet for two hundred people. He hired a bartender, four waiters, and two musicians. Then he took out his stack of index cards and embarked on the most delicate and satisfying task of all: compiling his guest list” (Berendt 370).

I think that this quote is a good example of a theme Berendt repeatedly mentions throughout the book. No matter what events occur, Savannah remains the same. Jim Williams was tried a record-breaking four times for the murder of Danny Hansford. After he is acquitted, does he move away? No. He chooses to remain in Mercer House. Williams even continues his old tradition of the annual Christmas party. Other than the absence of Danny Hansford’s less-than-delightful presence, there is little different in Mercer House. Williams even calls up his usual caterer and compiles his guest list, acting the whole time as if the past eight years never happened. This attitude extends beyond just Williams to the entire city of Savannah. The city and its inhabitants do all they can to preserve things as they are. They remain isolated; insular and voluntarily cut off from the outside world. Things have been a certain way in the past, so they should always be that way. I also think Berendt is a good observer of this as an outsider (at least initially) in Savannah’s society. He is able to describe this characteristic in a way that other outsiders, such as myself, can read about and better understand it.

IB English Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil Chunk #2 Response

Theme: Corruption of Authorities

“Some weeks after the guilty verdict was handed down, Bobby Lee Cook received an envelope from an anonymous source in the district attorney’s office. Inside was a copy of the police report written by Corporal Anderson on the night of the earlier incident. The report contained the statement: ‘We did find a fresh bullet hole in the floor.” It contradicted his sworn testimony at the trial” (Berendt 236).

I think that this quote exemplifies Berendt’s continued theme of the corruption of Savannahian authorities. The background for the above quote is that Spencer Lawton was Savannah’s District Attorney and the prosecutor in the case against Jim Williams, and that Bobby Lee Cook is defending Williams. Lawton called Corporal Anderson to testify that the bullet hole found in the Mercer House floor several months before the murder was not fresh. This would have meant that Danny Hansford did not fire a Luger into the floor in anger and that the whole “angry outburst” incident was staged by Williams. Since said incident was several months prior to the actual killing, it would have meant that Williams had planned out Danny’s murder in advance. Lawton made this theory the central argument in his case before the Georgia Supreme Court.

However, the report in the quote shows that this testimony, and hence theory, were false. This meant that Lawton conducted serious legal misconduct in his persecution of Williams. Since Lawton had lost his previous case, perhaps he was extra determined to win this one, even if it required circumventing the law. This corruption is made evident by the quote, and provides a key example of Berendt’s continued theme of the corruption of Savannahian authorities. Previously in the book, Berendt had told of how, during Prohibition, when alcohol was illegal, Savannah was still “wet”. This implies that the authorities knew about Savannah ignoring the law, but chose to not prosecute them. Furthermore, Berendt discusses how many parties take place in Savannah are loud and disturb the neighbors, implying that they are likely breaking noise ordinance laws. Again, the authorities do nothing. On top of all of this, local law enforcement (with the occasional exception of a rookie) is blatantly stated to allow Emma Kelly, the “Lady of Six Thousand Songs”, to drive over the speed limit. And, at this point in the book, Berendt makes it clear that this corruption of Savannahian authorities includes both the lower-ranking police officer and the higher-ranking District Attorney.

Does anyone agree or disagree? I did not actually notice a part of the book where these legal authority figures are portrayed as positive, non-corrupt figures, but it would be great if someone else did and let me know where it is.

IB English Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil Chunk #1 Response

Foreshadowing: Jim Williams

“…I keep pistols in strategic places. There's a Luger in the rear library, another in a desk drawer in my office, a third in the Irish linen press in the hall, and a Smith and Wesson in the living room. I've also got a shotgun and three or four rifles upstairs. The pistols are loaded.

‘That's four loaded pistols,’ I said.

‘There's a risk, I know. But I'm a gambler’” (Berendt 21).

I think that this quote shows foreshadowing. Although Berendt’s book is technically classified as nonfiction (and even this is debated), he makes use of several techniques commonly seen in novels, one of which is foreshadowing. The above quote discusses how Jim Williams keeps many (loaded) guns in his house for protection. However, based on what the readers see of Savannah, this is not entirely necessary. For example, Joe Odom never shuts the doors to his residence. Even if a firearm deterrent were needed, one or two guns would be plenty. Since Jim Williams has all of these guns in his house, the chances that he will use a gun at least some point in the story seems likely. In addition, Williams admits that it is a risk, but he is a gambler. Unfortunately, a gambler will eventually run out of luck. Due to all of this, I think that there will be a tragic accident involving Jim Williams and his gun(s) somewhere later on in the story.

Does anyone agree or disagree with my opinion? In addition, since the book is “nonfiction”, do you think this part of the book is germane to today’s debates about gun control?

IB English 1984 Chunk #2 Response

Quote:

“She brought the glass paperweight over to the bed to have a look at it in a better light. He took it out of her hand, fascinated, as always, by the soft, rainwatery appearance of the glass.

‘What is it, do you think?’ said Julia.

‘I don't think it's anything – I mean, I don't think it was ever put to any use. That's what I like about it. It's a little chunk of history that they've forgotten to alter. It's a message from a hundred years ago, if one knew how to read it.’” (Orwell, 145).

Paperweight symbol:

The paperweight is symbolic, for Winston, of the past. Since Winston remembers some of the past before the Party came to power, he sees meaning in the paperweight. However, Julia, who never knew of life before the Party, does not see the same meaning in the paperweight. Since the paperweight is made of glass, it is transparent and easily seen through, unlike the claims of the Party, which are murky and opaque, distorting and hiding the truth rather than showing it. The coral at the center is another link to the past, since coral is natural (unlike almost everything in Oceania) and takes a long time to develop. It must be nurtured by the right conditions to grow into a full adult, and appears to symbolize Winston in this respect. The coral is also rare, and Winston compares it to the lives of Julia and himself, two uncommon people, Outer Party members rebelling against the Party’s practices and trying to get to a place where Big Brother is not watching them. But it is in vain. When the Thought Police enter the room, the paperweight is smashed, showing how all of Winston’s hopes of regaining the splendor of the past and rebelling against the Party have been smashed.

"Nobelity" Impressions Post-Viewing

Our class recently finished viewing the film Nobelity. After this viewing, I looked back and thought about the film: what had struck me before (see below post) and what struck me now. If I had to describe Nobelity using three adjectives, I would choose "idealistic", "vague", and "confusing" (note: some might disagree with these descriptors, but I am writing my personal view of the film). In Nobelity, Turk Pipkin intermittently interrupts his interviews with Nobel laureates to discuss and show film clips of his two daughters. Pipkin appears to be trying to communicate how the whole idea for the Nobelity film relates to his daughters asking him questions about the world, but this is never fully fleshed out and often acts as an unnecessary interruption to the interviews. Another interruption to the interviews is Pipkin's struggle to learn how to juggle five balls at once. I personally have no idea of what Pipkin was even trying to communicate with that anecdote. And then we reach the interviews themselves. Alone, a single interview clip would seem to be cohesive, thought-provoking, and make sense. However, Pipkin asks Nobel Laureates from different fields many different questions, preventing the film from being cohesive as a whole. The interview clips jump back and forth between why knowledge is key to how cancer could be cured in the near future to why landmines are very dangerous to how we need more energy to how we need to empower women more and plant more trees to why religion isn't always a barrier to how all humans are part of the same family to how nuclear arsenals should be reduced worldwide. While viewing this, I got only the overall sense that there are many world problems and many potential solutions, but none of them are, in my opinion, looked at enough in-depth. On the bright side, within this "mish-mash" of a film are some interesting quotes that can, by themselves, be thought-provoking: "On 9/11, more people died of AIDS than of terrorism acts", "The sea is actually made up of drops of water: individual actions matter", "It's going to be simple, but it's not going to be easy". If I had to give Nobelity a rating, it would be four out of ten stars. Overall, Nobelity is a film that succeeded in its goal of getting me to think about world problems. However, it did not succeed further than that, becoming a disorienting whirlwind of moving images and sounds that left me very confused by the film's end.

"Nobelity" Impressions So Far

Our class recently viewed the beginning of the film Nobelity. After the viewing, I thought about the film a little and what had struck me so far. Nobelity is described as a documentary in which a man interviews nine Nobel Laureates in an attempt to ask and answer questions about modern-day problems that society is facing. So far, the film has brought up some interesting questions and criticisms regarding our society: Decisions are not made with the long-term future in mind. Do Americans not know or care about global issues such as health? Our history is one of war, not peace. All of these are intriguing, thought-provoking prompts. However, while the film does an excellent job of raising these questions, it does not do such a good job answering them. Nobelity points out problems, but not solutions. In addition, the Nobel Laureates interviewed are from a variety of different fields, and they are asked different questions, preventing the film from having a cohesive direction, at least so far. On top of that, I had another issue with the film so far, although it might not bother others. When Nobel Peace Prize winner Jody Williams is interviewed, she says, "There is nothing magical about change. It's just getting off your @** and taking the first step. It's being the future you want to see." While this quote could have been memorable and optimistic, I feel that it was ruined by the unnecessary usage of foul language. In a film that discusses issues in modern-day society, one would think that a Nobel Peace Prize winner, likely a role model to many, would choose not to use such vulgarities. In fact, I feel that in order to address big world issues, we need to start by addressing small, local issues, including overuse of foul language. While Nobelity has done a good job bringing up major issues, it has so far failed to offer realistic solutions to these big problems and does absolutely nothing to address the smaller ones. Hopefully, the rest of the film will not follow suit in the latter two aspects.

Principled

IB Quality that best describes me: Principled

   I have high standards of both academic and personal integrity. I am also very honest and always do what I believe is right and rational. I always treat others the way I wish to be treated. I do my best to help others whenever they need it. I also follow all known codes of social conduct. I accept full responsibility for my actions and the effects they have on others. I am also insistent upon refraining from using inappropriate language, even in "casual" social situations, and I haven't ever offended anyone on purpose.