Author: Jessica Thorne (Page 1 of 2)

Our group project for this course was very open-ended, which gave us an opportunity to explore something outside of what we had been studying in class. My group chose to read and analyze The Story of Oby Pauline Réage. We wrote a paper and created a PowerPoint and handout to teach our class about the book, its history, and what it meant. I think we all worked well together and created a solid presentation. Now a little bit of what we learned.

When The Story of Owas published in 1954 it was faced with controversy in the literary world. In France, first a court case based on obscenity against the book, but then the charge was dropped, and it just was not allowed to be promoted. Also, it was not allowed to be sold to minors. In the United Kingdom, a similar system of non-promotion and limited distribution was put into place. The Story of O is considered one of the greatest works of erotic fiction, especially in a literary context. However, the feminist movement of the 1970s in the United States did not like it. They burned copies of the book along with bras in protest of the novel, so they did not see it as a feminist book. They saw it as something more oppressive like 120 Days of Sodom. Other people did view it as a feminist novel as mentioned above because it was the first time that a woman openly wrote about sexual experiences from a female point of view. Before her it was basically all men or anonymous. One example of a male version would be 120 Days of Sodomby Marquis de Sade, which was much obscener, and was banned several times in many different countries.

The Story of O had several film adaptations done, but none of them were ever very successful and were often unliked. This most likely had to do that it is so much harder to display the emotions and inner decisions of O in a film that makes the book well written and a good read. It also is probably harder to display that O had a choice in everything and it was not just force. It has also had two translations into English. Aury disapproved of the first one and thought that it was overly simplistic and did not capture the meaning of the book at all. The second one published by Grove Press did have her approval as it got the meaning and feeling of the content across more accurately

Anne Desclos as Dominique Aury as Pauline Réage did meet the challenge set by Jean Paulhan of being a female writing a novel like the works of Marquis de Sade. She included the same elements of sex, torture, and submissivity in a way that no one was really expecting, and maybe this was because a woman had never really actively tried to do this. She did it though, and it was published, and it was argued over in similar ways to 120 Days of Sodom, just in a later time period. She also did not reveal her own identity until the very end of her life, once her parents and Paulhan were all long dead. She still received the mail of people to Réage because there were a couple people who knew, but she was able to comment on it and view the scandal from the outside without having her other work or her life affected too much. She published a fantastic and controversial book without being typecast by it.

This text was very different from everything else we have read because it was a magazine, it was visually graphic, and it was from a part of the world that we had not touched on much. It also showed criticism of the western world in a couple pages in each issue. We looked at issues 1, 2, 3, and 8, and it was interesting to see how they evolved overtime. In class I learned that the magazine is still continued, but under a different name, which I did not quite know how to deal with because there were so many graphic and violent pictures in them. Are they still like that, and why do they have this much violence to show? 

It was interesting to see a conflict that I have grown up with from the other side. I have always heard of it and seen it through the lens that American news paints for us. It is easier for me to understand the entirety of the conflict when I can see both sides of the story. One thing that I observed was that there were no women mentioned or depicted, except for one little girl, in the four issues that we looked at. I know that women are seen differently by the group there than they are here in America, but it was still weird because it was almost as if they did not exist at all.

I am glad that I was able to read these magazines because I might not ever get another chance to read them. While I did not understand all of the religious references, I could still understand most of the magazine based on the images, rest of the text, and context. It was also interesting to see how another place viewed American politics and politicians from the outside during a set period of time that I have lived through, and I cannot wait to see what foreign magazines and countries think of this period of politics and future ones.

Here were my questions on this text:

1. How do the images enforce the text? What do they say by themselves? 
2. Why do you think there are so many quotes, especially religious ones?
3. Why does every issue have an entire section dedicated to “the Islamic State in the Words of the Enemy,” what was it trying to establish/accomplish?

This was a very funny and action filled movie that shows a brilliant satire of Christianity, and more specifically, Catholicism. I thought the dialogue and music were very well done, and the storyline made it even better. I understand why some Catholic groups did not like it, but the Catholic church itself did not publicly respond to it. There is always going to be an unhappy group of people after a satirical movie or book is released. This movie is interesting because in the end God still wins and is still omnipotent. It plays with the idea that two fallen angels could break that and therefore break the universe, but they do not actually succeed.

Another thing that I found interesting about this movie was that it had a female lead character that saves the day. That could be part of the satire because it is a film on a religion where women do not have many leadership positions, but also, she is depicted as a second Mary of Nazareth, the mother of Jesus, when she becomes pregnant with the next Christ through immaculate conception. Personally, I liked it because it showed a female leader beating a male leader in a fight, and it manifests God as both male and female at different points in the movie. It shows that gender does not really matter to God as long as you do the right thing.

This movie adds a funny twist that sometimes is needed when things in life are rough or confusing. It shows a different side to a religion that some people follow, and others find too oppressive. It is just one of many movies and television shows that satirize some form of religion, and if they were not all picked on a little bit, then it would be oppressive to the few being satirized.

When I went to this film, I did not really know what to expect. In my junior year of high school I had to read several war books for my English class, and I understand why we had to read them, I just did not find them interesting at the time. Who knows, if I read them in an out of school context, I may grow to like them. It probably also had to do with reading so many in one year. I am so glad that I watched it because it blew me away, and I cannot wait to read the book of the same name sometime in the near future.

What amazed me most was the rawness of it showed what actually could have happened in the trench warfare of the time. Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party hated it, banned it, and burned all copies of the book, as well as hurting anyone who watched the film. I think they did these things because it made Germany look bad, but honestly, the conditions were probably not all that different no matter which side you were on. It helped me better understand World War I from the point of view of a soldier and the civilians in his hometown instead of from a highly politicized perspective.

Along with the music, symbolism, and imagery of the film, one thing that really stood out to me was the addressing of PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) from a first-person perspective. You could watch as the trauma of the war changed him in his actions on the front, and his actions and relationships while he was on leave. While about thirty minutes of the original film have been lost to time, the rest of it is moving, and emotional, and powerful in its ability to show war in a film without glorifying and sugarcoating it as it sometimes is in other movies or television shows.

This was a really emotional film for me, mostly because it focused so much on the children. The children who had been injured and orphaned and made homeless by a war they had no control of. It shows the effects of the war in Iraq on the children, and how hopeful everyone in their village was for the U.S. invasion and the fall of Saddam Hussein. The use of music and symbolism in this movie were phenomenal and made me want to cry even more than just the dialogue alone.

This movie also shows through memories and reflections that war horrors like rape, murder, and injury happen to everyone in a warzone, not just the adults or the ones who are fighting. It shows that PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) can affect anyone and everyone, not just soldiers who have fought in a war. This movie shows how it affects children and how the deal with it. Some of the are closed off and bitter, others try to hide it and act as normal as they can by taking care of who they have left with them and collecting mines from a minefield to sell for money.

While I would definitely recommend watching this film at some point if you are able, it does have some very strong themes that some people may not be able to view. It deals with rape, suicide, and child abuse, as well as the positive and negative effects of war on a group of people. It is a very well put together movie and I am glad I had a chance to watch it now because it gives me a perspective of that war that is not tainted with political biases from any country or political party in a horrific and brutal, but beautiful and poetic, way.

This was a very long and rambling text, but it did include pictures throughout the text as well as at the end, and two links to videos that have been taken down since the publication of his work. This is one of the most recent texts that we have read in class, and I am kind of surprised that I did not know about the events that happened eleven days after my eleventh birthday until reading the text and reading around it. 

What he did was horrific. He killed a few people with a bomb, then went to a camp and killed and injured many people with a gun while posing as a police officer. This caused a later distrust when the actual police were trying to control the situation and save the innocent victims. What he wrote was a horrific plan as well, but it was mostly plagiarized work from other texts, including the Unabomber manifesto, with a couple words changed here and there. In fact, he took part of an article out of context from a right-wing publication that was published ten years before that mentions Professor Al-Tikriti. It is once again an extreme rightist text but is more focused on his islamophobia and anti-immigrant attack than anything else. He wanted to defend his version of Europe, which meant getting rid of Islam just like the Christian crusaders ended the Ottoman siege of Vienna in 1683.

One thing that distinguishes this text from others is that he sent it out to email addresses that he got from Facebook, and included a link to YouTube, both of which were relatively new at the time. This was one of the first extreme texts to be distributed online first, and more would only follow it as the internet expanded and changed. It is kind of scary to live in world where texts like this can be so easily distributed and even followed.

My questions on this text were:

1. Why did he basically plagiarize for the entirety of his work? Had everything already been said or was he just not sure what he wanted to say so he used the words of others?
2. Was this the first example of a terrorist figure using Facebook and Wikipedia for information and distribution of their ideas?
3. Are some of his nationalistic views shared by world leaders? Who? Where are they from?

I liked the way this text started and ended in the future, but the main part of it was written in his present and presented as if it had already happened. This text like a lot of the other ones that we have read this semester is an extreme rightist text that is against everyone who is not a straight, white, Christian. This includes most immigrants. Before it was printed as a mail-order book it was printed in a propaganda magazine, and the “past” events occurred in 1980. It was published in 1978, and it inspired many acts of terrorism and hate crimes, including the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, which was considered one of the biggest acts of terrorism against the United States until the attacks on September 11, 2001. When it was reprinted in 1980, they shifted most of the events so that it was now set in 1990. This is interesting because it probably means that some people still wanted something like it to happen, and since it had not happened yet, they wanted more time to prepare for it.

One thing in particular that caught my eye as I was reading this text was that the last act of Turner was to fly a plane into the Pentagon 11/9. The end of the text makes this action sound heroic. To most of the rest of the world 11/9 means September 11, and not November 9 like in the United States. Only twenty-three years after this book was published in the United States the Pentagon and the Twin Towers were destroyed by terrorists flying planes into them, killing so many people during and after the attack. I know that there is evidence that this text inspired attacks in the United States, England, and Western Europe, but did its influences reach farther east? Or was it just a coincidence? We will probably never know, but it sure is scary to think about what could happen if more attacks from texts such as this started being acted out more often.

My questions on this text were:

1. To anyone else does it seem like a combination of a Nazi and United States Confederate victory over the United States? Does the authors family history reflect why he might have been racist and ani-Semitic? Why or why not?
2. The author was influenced by other writings or events of a similar nature, what might this text have influenced after its publication?
3. Do you think that his writing about destroying the Pentagon had any relation to the pentagon being targeted in the attack on September 11, 2001?

This text was really interesting to read because it addresses fears about technology that are still present in today’s society. It was also interesting to read around the text because I have heard references to the Unabomber and the Unabomber sketch, but I never really knew anything about him or the case. Now I know what Ted Kaczynski did, that he was caught, and how he was caught. In fact, he was identified when he was because his brother read Industrial Society and Its Future in the Washington Post and recognized his writing style.

            One thing that he wrote about that struck a chord in me was his fear of genetic engineering. He believed that in time technology would be great enough that society would start to make babies that they deemed “correct” and “normal.” Today those potential babies are called “designer babies” and a lot of people today are scared of what will happen when this technology is available. It will create even more divides in our society based on who can afford it and who cannot. Then there could be a divide between the “better” genetically engineered people and the “worse” natural people. I kind of agree that the morals and laws of our society are not keeping up with the technology. I mean who will decide what is right and what is wrong? There are some genetic mutations that exist that lead to external or internal differences in people but cause no problems in living a normal healthy life. I agree with him that we need to be careful with technology and consider its effects carefully before using something new, but I do not agree with the way he tried to get attention for his argument. Killing academics, scientists, and other innocent people was not right way to be heard. I mean he was an academic himself, so there are probably some more legal ways he could have gotten his ideas to politicians or newspapers, or he could have just staged peaceful protests, and he probably would have gotten the support and recognition that he wanted. 

My questions for this text are:

1. Are his fears about scientific and technological morals relevant today? If they are, are the possibilities that people fear the same or have they evolved?
2. Would this text be as controversial if he had not also been a domestic terrorist? Is it not so similar to other texts where technology and the government control everything about the human race?
3. Did having it first published in well-respected newspapers instead of in a book or pamphlet add to or detract from the public receival of the text? Why?

Reading this book was quite strange, but interesting. It was also fun to read as it had elements of humor in it that most of the other literature that we have read does not. It was also the only novel that we have read this semester. It was kind of hard for me to understand why it was controversial at first, but then after reading around it and participating in the class discussion I think I know why. Rushdie was making fun of the Quran, so when it got out of hand he was punished. This book lead to riots and unrest, so Ayatollah Khomeini addressed it as he saw fit. He saw this book as an act of apostacy, which was punishable by death.

One thing that I noticed while reading this book was the similarities it had to a book that I have read that was recently turned into a television series which I have watched. Good Omensby Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett is about an angel and a demon working together before and on Judgement day to prevent it and save the Earth. The main two characters in Satanic Versesare also act as a demon and an angel, and they have to figure out how to navigate Earth and do as they have been told. Gaiman and Pratchett wrote Good Omensaround the time when Salman Rushdie had to go into hiding for writing Satanic Verses. They were worried that their book might be met with similar problems, but when it was released, all it got was love. The problem came years later when Neil Gaiman produced a television mini-series on Good Omens. Thousands of Christians signed a petition to Netflix to discontinue the show. This is kind of ironic because it is not even a Netflix show. It is an Amazon Prime show, and there was never going to be more than one season of the show. 

Gaiman and Pratchett never had to hide like Rushdie did, but they witnessed the full impact of Rushdie’s book. They saw the reports of the riots and the attempts on his life. They and Rushdie both knew that their respective books might cause controversy in their respective religious worlds (Rushdie-Islam, Gaiman and Pratchett-Christianity), but they wrote and published them anyway. The meeting and actions of a demon and an angel caused a lot of protests, especially when they do not quite follow what they are supposed to do.

My questions for this text were:

1. How do the two main characters in the first part view themselves? Their relationship? How are they viewed by the people in their lives?
2. How do their outfits reflect their personality? What about their actions and expressions?
3. How are the differences in good and bad explored in this text? Are they really so different? Could “human” be considered its own category somewhere in between? If so, how would you define “human.”

This is a very extreme text that I do not believe in, but I am glad to have read it. As this was only an abridged version, I am interested in seeing what was left out and if it adds any new information to the text or it is just repeating the same ideas over and over again. I did think what was written was kind of funny at some points because it was so extreme and hypocritical it did not make much sense. She wanted to get rid of the oppressive men, and just replace them with oppressive women. 

One thing that did really bother me was the references to genetics and eugenics. After taking a genetics class in high school and learning about the Holocaust in this class as well as the forced sterilization in the United States, especially in Virginia, it made me want to gag because of the ethical breaches that were mentioned. First, they called men incomplete women and that y chromosomes were just incomplete x chromosomes. This does not take into account that some mutations are not harmful, and they are nature’s way of adapting and keeping a species alive. It also mentions engineering babies and breeding out mental and physical deformities, including blindness and men. Who gets to make the decision on what is “normal” and what are desired traits? Some people with these differences live perfectly happy and healthy lives that they would not trade for anything.

I do recommend that this text be kept on the reading list, but maybe a different version because not only was it not the original, but it also had a lot of typos that were annoying to read around. I also think that it shows the thinking of some people during the second wave of the feminist movement, but not very many and not for very long, because to most people it was about equality, not a violent reversal of power positions.

This book was very surreal for me to read because I did not know how easy it was to make most of the recipes in this book. The knowledge of how to make various drugs, drug related food, firearms, other weapons, and spy equipment just out there. I also find interesting that this book had big impact because it did have predecessors. I mean it is directly connected to the Oklahoma City bombing, which was one of the biggest terrorist attacks in A It is also kind of funny that several years after publishing the book, the author decided he did not like the book and wanted to keep it from being published. When he could not do that, he went through the rest of his life trying to repent for writing it. 

Going back and reading it now many of the methods and technologies seem really outdated, and not very relevant to current times. At the same time though, it did have an impact, and if a politician or businessman had published it when they were younger, they would not get away with it because of the internet. It would be even more troublesome if it was about contemporary technology, but it would be hard to keep updating the book with the best ways of doing things because technology and science are moving very rapidly.

Overall, I believe this was a good text to read and would recommend it for future classes because it shows a controversial text that most people have probably heard of but have never gotten a chance to look at. It also provides insight into the mind of a researcher in that time period, and an insight into the life of a nineteen-year-old boy who probably had a little too much extra time on his hands. So, watch out what you wish for when you ask the rising generation to express themselves and take action.

This movie was really funny and very much a Monty Python film. It was filled with slapstick humor and made fun of all parties involved. I can understand why this film was banned at one point, but I also feel as if it allows us to mentally to criticize all sides of a situation no matter which side we are on.

Life of Brianwas so interesting to watch because It was funny, but it also showed how ineffective a political movement can be when they are divided into many smaller parties. In current events this could be compared to the democratic parties’ candidates for president in the 2020 election. It also shows somewhat how groupthink works. When a couple people believe that Brian is the Messiah, more and more people keep following him around because of a common want to see him, and if someone suggests a way to do this, then they will all follow. By showcasing these issues, they provided a way to recognize these topics in our own world and be able to address them more easily because everyone is criticized and everyone is satisfied by some part of it.

I have seen parts of this movie before in Latin class and have seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail on my own time. I was also in a production of Spamalot my junior year of high school. So, you could say I have some experience with Monty Python, but I also feel as though I have barely scratched the surface of their brilliance. Part of that brilliance is making fun of some controversial issues in the present, often set in the past. It takes actions of groups or individuals out of context to show just how ridiculous they might seem to an outsider, and how it is ok to believe whatever you want.

Our visit to the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. was very moving for me. It was filled with images and artifacts that really spoke to the horrors that happened to real, relatable people right under the noses of so many bystanders. I learned that the Holocaust happened, but the closest I ever came to the detailed story was reading Night by Eli Wiesel. Seeing all the images of Hitler rising to power, kicking out the Jews, and killing the Jews made me wonder how the rest of the world could not be bothered to help until so many had been killed and Western Europe was being threatened.

There were three specific things in the main exhibit that hurt me the most. The first was the images of the Jewish people living normal lives before they were captured and killed. The second was all the images and artifacts related to children. Every time I saw a childish drawing or a photo of a smiling child, I knew they had been most likely been killed soon afterwards. How could people kill innocent children and indoctrinate their own to do the same thing. It just does not make any sense. The third thing that really got to me were the piles of shoes and hair. These were part of the discarded pieces of the people who had been gassed. The shoes were taken from people who had been starved and tortured and eventually killed. They were a physical connection to a horrific past that has changed my life forever.

The final part of our visit was perhaps the most amazing. We listened to a ninety-year-old survivor tell her story of living in early Nazi Germany. Luckily, she and her family were able to get out of Germany before the killing really started. She told us of how she was glad to be pulled out of public school where kids made fun of her. How she was attacked by a guard and his daughter for trying to walk across a park, and so much more. It just so happened that the Identification card that I had picked up before venturing into the permanent exhibit was her. It was so surreal to read the card, go through the exhibit fairly carefully from start to finish, and then hear her tell her story that started in Germany, then went to several places in France before finally ending that horrific chapter of her life by going to the United States and meeting her family.

The questions that were asked afterwards were so meaningful, and before we left, I went up and told her that I had picked up her card and thanked her. She signed it with the following message followed by her name. I will treasure it forever.

“Good luck in your life.”

In my first post about Mein KampfI was mainly reflecting on the first volume. This post will be focused on the second volume and the book as a whole. What I found interesting about the second part of the book was more about what needed to be done and how to do it. It also included a lot about the National Socialist German Workers Society, and how they needed to cleanse the German people and get rid of the Marxist parties and other left-wing parties.

The main thing that caught my attention though was the similarities I found in the actions of Hitler and the actions of the warlords of the Ancient Roman Republic. The government and the senators of the Roman Republic could not handle the expanding territories and the generals (or warlords) who wanted glory and honor for themselves and the state. Hitler wanted more land for the glory and improvement of the German state. The Weimar Republic was in his way, and they could not control him. Caesar ended up winning his war and was killed. Hitler lost his war and killed himself. Based on the first few pages of the second volume of Mein Kampf it seemed that Hitler may have known about Roman History, and it was somewhere in the back of his head.

Overall the themes and topics of this book did not vary much. It was basically just a record of his personal ideologies, along with some tangents about his life and how his experiences influenced his views. It also shows how he built up his own world view which he later would impose onto a nation. I believe that any ideological book, including this one, can be used for peace or violence. I also believe that unless someone acts upon these beliefs they will not become widespread or remembered through history. 

When I started this book all I had to go on was the reputation of its author, Adolf Hitler, and that it was written in prison. I was surprised that the quality of writing was not very high, but that makes sense now that I know he never even finished high school. I was also surprised with how many excuses he gave. He was not accepted to art school because he was better at architecture, he did not have to go to high school because he was not going to follow in his father’s footsteps. Everything always happened to him, and he was always right and never at fault.

Another thing that I noticed was how mild it was compared to the later actions of Hitler and Nazi Germany. Yes, he mentions some of the ideas, such as Jews are bad, Aryans need to be the best to survive, and we need more land to be more successful. He never actually says what he would do to follow out these ideas. It is just a book of his own beliefs and ideas, and if he had not started World War II and instigated the Holocaust, then the book would not be famous. He did though, so all of his writings and speeches were used to support him and teach others his ideals and motivations.

There are many memoirs and books on political theories that are written, and may contain some controversial ideas, but they are not all super well known because the ideas did not take off, someone else took credit for the ideas, or the author never acted so drastically based on their beliefs. I believe that this book shows a valid opinion of a person during a time where the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is tarnishing the reputation of the Jews along with the rumors of Jewish communists and eugenics. I do not believe at all that his later actions were acceptable. Everyone, including dictators and terrorists, are entitled to their own opinions and ideas, but if it is harmful to anyone it should not be acted upon, no matter how right you think it is.

When I was first reading this article, I did not know what it was really discussing. As I got into it, I began to find it to be a really interesting topic. Jewish Communism is not something that I had ever heard discussed in any class, but it puts a lot of historical events in context. It also makes since that it was more common in Europe than America because that is where Communism started, and it was also the first place that Jewish suspicion began, mainly with The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion. This text blamed Jews for everything, and it heightened discrimination against them. This article about how the threat of Jewish Communism is fake provides examples on how the theory has been disproven, and how long it has taken for the disproval to be accepted in different parts of the world.

I think the idea of any one religion being connected to Communism is silly, but I guess with different influences against the Jews I can see how it could be possible. It is the same reason why Muslims might get associated with terrorism because of the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Just because some people in that religion did something wrong or were depicted negatively, the rest of the people get lumped together with them. This process is not healthy for the thoughts and beliefs of anybody. If this person believed anything else or looked a different way, then we would not think anything of it. We should try as hard as we can to get to know a person first before judging them based on mental stereotypes. The Jewish Communism is not as strong in America as it used to be or as it was in Europe, but we still see the influences today in shootings at religious locations as well as the burning of religious locations, not just against the Jewish communities, but in other stereotyped minority communities as well.

Honestly, this was really hard for me to get through and I had to break it up into four sections of six protocols plus the introduction in the first section in order to get through the entire text. There seemed to be a lot of extra words, and a lot of repetition within the different sections. To me it seemed like an extremist text similar many of the texts written by leaders of different extremist groups, like Russian communism, Al Qaeda and ISIS, that just think that their own people are the only good ones, and if everyone else will not concede to their ways of life then they will be killed. It also seemed like they had the perfect plan to make everyone equal and basically black mail everyone to keep them under control. I had to break it up so that I could focus on the text and not get bored by it.

One thing that I did notice was that they repeated a version of the phrase, “come into our kingdom,” in almost every section. This phrase in particular caught my attention because it was one I recognize from a hymn that I sing in my church back home. It goes “Jesus, remember me, when I come into your kingdom.” To me this hymn is saying to remember us for the good deeds we have done when we eventually go to heaven. When they say it in these protocols in a figurative sense it seems as if they are saying that the kingdom is theirs alone, and they will go to it no matter what when they die. In a literal sense it seems as if they believe they are the chosen ones and can do no wrong, no matter what they do, and if you want to live you will have to do it their rules and under their domain, or kingdom. This just did not sit right with me and made it even harder for me to read because it was an extreme version of something I know personally.

This was a really interesting article to read. I have heard of various conspiracy theories, but I had never really paid them much attention. When girls on my church retreats would watch videos about it, I would just shake my head and start talking to my friend about something else. After reading this article I see them as much more interesting, especially from a philosophical or observational standpoint. I enjoyed reading through this paper because first it defined what a conspiracy theory was and what made it up. Then, it gave an example of a major conspiracy theory event, explained the main side and then the conspiracy side, then gave example of what can go wrong with conspiracy theories, and finally how they are perceived at different levels of explanation. This was really helpful for me as I did not really know what I was getting in to.

As I was reading it gave the example of the Watergate scandal, which I had always know as a proven scandal. I did not realize that it started out as a conspiracy theory that was uncovered by two Washington Post reporters and their informant. I guess if you think about it, most scandals were some form of conspiracy theory at some point because they were covered up by a small group of people, then investigated and uncovered based on holes in the public stories. 

Something thing conspiracy theorists do need to be careful of is not adding too much explanation and connectedness in their story. If the story is too perfect and well put together, then they are less believable because no news coverage or person is perfect. As long as we are able to see these over explained theories as more likely bad ones and we can distinguish the good ones like the article suggests, I believe that conspiracy theories have a valid place in philosophy and the world, and would be fun to investigate if deemed believable.

Reading this introduction helped me process the book in its entirety a little bit better because it gave me a sense of why Marquis de Sade wrote this text. It also let me see how other people have viewed this text throughout history, which let me comprehend it even more because I was able to understand different perspectives that were biased by their own time period as I am biased mine. To me the text seemed overly sexual, abusive, and controlling for no apparent reason. After discussing it with the class and reading this introduction I understand that it has had a purpose over its long history. It is a satire on the political and religious life during the time of de Sade as well as a way for him to exert control in a situation where he had no control. With the introduction I was able to see that some people also viewed it a scientific study in psychology and others saw it as case study in sexology. No matter which way it was viewed, whether for science or satiric pleasure, the book has a purpose.

It was also interesting that although de Sade wanted to be buried with no marker and be forgotten by men, he still wrote many incendiary texts and participated in some remarkable scandals, some of which are reflected in 120 Days of Sodom, that led him to become famous even within his own lifetime. If he did not want to be known after life, why did he seem to crave it so much during life? We will probably never know, but it is interesting to think about. Another question I had prior to reading this introduction was why would anyone publish this book? The answer I found was that he was already famous for his other texts and acts, so everyone wanted it once the new text was discovered. It was also interesting to learn that only two people have ever translated the story from the original scroll itself, and all the other versions have been adapted and translated from the second of the two original translations. What if some parts are either added to the original manuscript? What if some parts have been left out? 

I believe that the version of the book we read is pretty close to the original manuscript, but as the original manuscript is currently locked up in France, I do not think there is any way to prove it one way or the other.

To me, the structure of the introduction was not that much different than the structure of the main book. Especially the part where the Duc set the ground rules for the “party,” and the part where the four friends are choosing the specific eight boys and eight girls that they want. They follow a pattern of elimination an even number of prospects every day for about a week. Another part that was similar was when it introduced each character individually, and then brought the stories of their lives together only after they were explained. This is similar to how the friends did not commit any explicit acts until they were told by the storytellers in their daily sessions. One thing that was slightly different was that at the end on the introduction Marquis de Sade listed all the characters again like you would in a play. The list of passions is never gone over again at the end of each month or at the end of the 120 days.

In the future I think it would definitely be more helpful to read the introduction before the text because it gave a background to the characters that kind of explained some of their interests and actions. It also helps you understand where in society all of these people are coming from, and how that is a reflection on how Marquis de Sade feels about those classes in the society around him. It was interesting though to read the introduction afterwards because it allowed me to view things as the people in the story viewed them because most of them did not have much background on the others around them. It was also interesting to read how the wives/daughters were raised and influenced in the introduction compared to the backgrounds and experiences of storytellers from the main book. Overall, I think reading the introduction first is important because it almost prepares you mentally for what is to come in the rest of the book. It kind of leads you in somewhat gently, and so by the time you get to the first day you understand what is going to happen, even if you do not like it. Even though the book is arranged from the mildest to the most violent and horrible, it can still be shocking if you dive right in on the first day with all the sexual references, abuses, and pedophilia.