Inferno - Theme and Summary

Book by Dan Brown, 2013

http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/Inferno.png

[THEME AND SUMMARY]

    Inferno, by Dan Brown: as I interpreted it, there are very few themes to this book, considering its base more of a thriller novel rather than a moral, message-ridden text: Dan Brown was looking more along the lines of entertaining the reader, instead of trying to use the book as a didactic tool. Nonetheless, I believe I found a few themes, one of which I'll be sharing.

    The theme I want to focus on, given that the half of the external conflict of the book is based on Zobrist's plague, is: Extirpation carries only the repercussion of abundance for the remainder. What my theme is saying is that after an area or population is partly (or not completely) destroyed, the leftover people, plants, or other lifeforms can take part in the enjoyment of what is left behind. In the book, Zobrist claims: “Culling is God’s Natural Order. Ask yourself, What followed the Black Death? We all know the answer. The Renaissance … Death is followed by birth...To reach Paradise, man must pass through Inferno” (Brown 103) What Zobrist is saying is that the Black Death, which symbolizes destruction, was followed by the Renaissance, which symbolizes the abundance. On a side note, the concept is true, but the reality is that the Black Death took two centuries, in over three major recorded epidemics. Giotto, one of the first famous Renaissance painters, lived and died before the Black Death ever really occurred. However, the Renaissance did outlive the Black Death, so it reached its peak post-plague, giving credence to Zobrist, or more technically, Dan Brown.

    The issue presented in this text is overpopulation, which is the reason why Zobrist is creating the plague, which he refers to as the "chthonic monster". Dan Brown presumably wrote this because he wanted to entertain his audience with a witty, hypothetical situation that contained facts, though the apocalyptic suggestions are simply exaggerated: if you read my Analysis section of Inferno in this blog, there's a video link at the bottom that denounces the possibility of the concept of true overpopulation.

    Inferno suggests that people behave in many different ways, often having their views conflict with others or form a bond on the contrary. With this, Zobrist thought that the human population was amassing at frightening rates, and should be culled. Elizabeth Sinskey, the head director of the World Health Organization (WHO), opposes this by calling this immoral and short-sighted. (Excuse me for not providing a quote - I would've rather, but this message was spread out too far to explain in so few words)

    Inferno also suggests that people may weave constant and severe lies, but out of necessity or psychological urge, rather than for personal gain. (Again, I won't have a single quote - it would be spread out over several pages) Sienna Brooks has lied all of her life because she was a child prodigy, with an IQ of 208 (In comparison, Stephen Hawking's IQ is only 200) Sienna was better than everyone else, and obsessed over her own problems. She excelled in acting, especially in her adult years, where she joined the Consortium to raise wages for med school, and the Consortium looked at her knack for deception as an immediate advantage against other potential Consortium members.

The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who 

maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.

-Dante Alighieri

    This quote from Dante was Zobrist's way of inspiring guilt in Sinskey, who was 'maintaining neutrality' in the midst of the overpopulation problem.

    The book is trying to explain to us the vagueness of the line between moral and immoral. Morality is a subject that has impeded science for years, similarly explored within Inferno. Zobrist believes his actions are justified, saving the world, though the WHO believe it the workings of a madman. Zobrist fully believes in his actions, calling them his parting gift to mankind. "...the spark that would finally ignite the fire that would rage across the land and clear the deadwood, once again bringing sunshine to the healthy roots." (Brown 47-8) 

Inferno - Analysis: Setting, Conflict, Minor Character

Book by Dan Brown, 2013

http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/Inferno.png

[ANALYSIS]

    Analysis of setting: In the book Inferno, the setting is a massive part of the plot. As the story revolves around Dante Alighieri's famous epic poem, Inferno, and follows Dante's story -- his trek through Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. Dante's birthplace, Florence, and his love Beatrice (whom he never becomes even remotely involved with), become central themes for the poem Inferno. First, his exile from Florence due to a murder on a bridge, (which resulted in a bloody feud between families) starts him on his "journey" through Inferno, or the underworld. Due to this, Florence is the main setting for Robert Langdon's mad escape from his own government. With Florence as the initial main setting, and the book containing historically accurate facts, the books appeal is accentuated by knowing that these things actually happened and were twisted into the making of a suspenseful, gripping, denouncing-of-Catholicism, (albeit not intentionally, according to the author, Dan Brown) thriller novel.

    Analysis of conflict: In the book, the conflict is both internal and external, exhibiting both frequently. Internally, the conflict is mainly within the minds of Robert Langdon, who struggles against amnesia against his normally eidictic memory, the provost, who struggles against his strict protocol and the massive threat he is technically endorsing, and the general mood of the book, where it seems deception is everywhere, and Sienna Brooks is obviously much more than who she says she is. For example, a man named Ferris joined Langdon and Sienna in their journey to stop the chthonic plague that Bertrand Zobrist engineered, and this Ferris seems to be hiding something, as he is acting suspiciously: "Knowing the ring well, [Ferris] immediately grabbed the phone... 'Sorry,' he said, standing up. 'Ailing mother'...[Ferris] locked the restroom door as he took the call. 'Hello?' The voice on the line was grave. 'It's the provost.'" (Brown 284) Ferris seems to be a deceptive figure, acting like a friend, who has connection with intent to impede Langdon, as evidenced by the appearance of the provost.
    Externally, the conflict is straightforward and right to the point: Bertand Zobrist, Transhumanist, (a society who believes humans should biogenetically reengineer themselves to survive) created a plague that would do something horrible (I don't want to give it away) which ultimately makes Zobrist go from 'scientific celebrity' to 'public enemy number one' overnight. Zobrist had thoughts of the world becoming overpopulated and becoming a "deadzone", a term for when an ecosystem becomes too full with a species and all the resources burn out, leaving the species completely extinct. Additionally, Zobrist seemed nearly out of his mind when it came to the boundaries of what he would do: "'Any environmental biologist or statistician will tell you that humankind's best chance of long-term survival occurs with a global population of around four billion.' 'Four billion?' Elizabeth fired back. 'We're at seven billion now, so it's a little late for that.' [Zobrist]'s green eyes flashed fire. 'Is it?'" (Brown 105) Zobrist, if given the chance, will attempt to curb the population of the world, from seven to four billion, which is rounded to 1/3, considering he stated that the Black Plague was the best thing to ever happen to the world, because after the 1/3 population decrease, an abundance of food and money was left over, and the Renaissance occurred.

     Analysis of a minor character: Vayentha. The "assassin" (this is later disproved, as she was faking the entire thing before she died) was a figure sent by the provost. Vayentha attempted to "shoot" Langdon in the head, and blamed the miss on the coo of a dove. She then is disconnected from the Consortium (the company of the provost) and takes the finding of Langdon in her own hands.
    Vayentha, as a member of the Consortium, never had the time for a personal life, nor a relationship, and is essentially wired for her duties full-heartedly. So she tracks Langdon and Sienna to the Corridor in Florence, away from prying eyes, and goes to prove to Langdon that her gun is fake, but Sienna mistakes this for Vayentha actually shooting Langdon, thus Sienna pushes Vayentha to her death.
    If Vayentha hadn't died, and she lived to prove her relative innocence, then the book would be much shorter because Vayentha essentially knew all the information that was covered in the first half of the book and the second half would be shortened because Langdon could figure it out much quicker with the knowledge.

    Which, if the book was shorter, that would suck. It's a good book.

    But, Vayentha died, and the book was longer, more comprehensive, and more intellectual. The plot of the book is much more complex now that everything must be revealed to us as fast as it is revealed to Langdon, suffering from amnesia. If Vayentha had a stronger impact in the book, it would weaken the overall message. Dan Brown did a superb job with this book.

This is a video that essentially tries to disprove the possibility of overpopulation:

The Killer Angels: A Novel of the Civil War - Analysis

Book by Michael Shaara, 1987

http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1355371689l/682804.jpg

[ANALYSIS]

   The book, The Killer Angels, by Michael Shaara, goes through the book and elaborates on the personal thoughts of the characters, one of the reasons the book is so impressive compared to other historical fiction books, possibly even regular novels. The Killer Angels follows these characters, who were living, breathing, real people once, in the flesh, and the book makes their long-past emotions and opinions into our world today once more.

   Analysis of Characters: The Killer Angels, with its ability to tag along with both sides of the Battle of Gettysburg, elaborates a little bit more onto the individual feelings of the generals and high-ranking officers of both sides, how even with a single, defined action, there were controversies and conflicts of interest. With the fateful Pickett's Charge, General Lee ordered the charge, but Longstreet disagreed, as this was suggesting they do what they had failed to do hours earlier with less troops. Though they went through with the idea, there was the conflicts of interest within the decision: "'Sir' He shook his head, groping for words. Lee waited. 'Sir, there are some things I must say.'... 'Sir, my two divisions, Hood and McLaws, lost almost half their strength yesterday. Do you expect me to attack again that same high ground which they could not take yesterday at full strength? With so many officers lost? Including Hood?' Lee was expressionless. The eyes were black and still." (Shaara 302) General Longstreet, Lee's second-in-command, disagrees with Lee on the tactics of the Confederacy, this included, along with how this warfare should be executed, in offensive or defensive warfare, for example. This similarly happened with the Union.

   I infer, that although it doesn't directly state it, Longstreet is worried about his ability to lead these men to their death. He begins to lose control of himself, subtly: "What was needed now was control, absolute control. Lee was right about that: a man who could not control himself had no right to command an army. They must not know my doubts, they must not. So I will send them all forward and say nothing, absolutely nothing, except what must be said. But he looked down at his hands. They were trembling." (Shaara 311) I infer that Longstreet likely had thoughts of his own ability to lead these men, as he withheld the fact that he had trouble controlling himself.



   During the famed Pickett's Charge, Lewis Armistead was focused upon, as he was among the ragged remains of the broken-up army. In the charge, he figured he had left his mark on this Earth and had already sent a package to the opposing general's wife (both of which he'd been old friends with). With the rest of his life in minutes, Armistead decides to climb upon the enemy wall. "...no Rebel yell now, no more screams of victory, the men falling here and there like trees before an invisible ax yo could see them go down one by one and in clumps...started screaming, follow me, follow me, and began the long fast walk toward the ridge. No need for hurry now, too tired to run, expecting to be hit an any moment...Armistead thought: we won't make it. He lifted the sword again, screaming, and moved on, closer, closer, but it was all coming apart. The whole world was dying." (Shaara 347) Armistead believed he was done, he was going to die, and he knew the only thing he could do was to keep going.

   I inferred that with Armistead's fairly traumatic situation of watching his friends and comrades die, he became disconnected from himself. "And then he was hit, finally, in his side, doubling him. No pain at all, merely a nuisance. He moved toward a cannon the boys had just taken. Some blue troops had stopped near the trees above and were kneeling and firing; he saw their rifles aimed at him. Too weary now... He saw again, a bloody tangle, men fighting hand-to-hand. An officer riding toward him; there was a violent blow... a sense of great peace." (Shaara 348-9) Armistead had experienced a feeling of knowing he will die here, on this day and hour, and became detached from himself. I infer this was common with the Civil War, especially since old friends will likely be fighting each other.




   Analysis of Conflict: Michael Shaara, the author, used both internal and external conflict in his book. With external conflict, which should be rather obvious considering the nature of the book, the Union, specifically the Army of the Potomac, and the Confederacy, the Army of Virginia, fought each other over the course of three days, four with the minor battle on July 4th, the symbolic finale of one of America's most important battles. "Here he had a few hundred. To the right Kemper's brigade had broken, but some men still fired..." (Shaara 348) The external conflict of the story is mostly based upon the battles and the shots fired.

   The internal conflict is the attention on the viewpoints of the officers and soldiers detailed in the book. The book emphasized that there's no one right way to do something, as oftentimes all choice will be limited to choosing the choice that will send the least men to their deaths while simultaeneously achieving the best possible tactical outcome. "Dear God, let it end soon. Now he must focus his mind on the war. Alternatives? Any real choice here? Move on, to higher ground in another place. Or stay and fight. Well if we stay, we must fight. No waiting. We will never be stronger." (Shaara 280) In this, Lee, the most beloved figure [arguably] in the Battle of Gettysburg, is attempting to decide his next course of action, which may determine the outcome of the battle and which will put the least amount of soldiers into harm's way.

   Both conflicts are emphasized nearly the same; internal and external conflicts are both heavy parts of the book, and are both frequently excerised with their role in the book. There is very little room to improve upon the capitalization of either type of confict.  

The Killer Angels: A Novel of the Civil War - Book Recommendation

Book by Michael Shaara, 1987

http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1355371689l/682804.jpg

[BOOK RECOMMENDATION]

   The Killer Angels, published in 1987, is a beautifully written, historical fiction novel of the three days of Gettysburg, four days if you count the minor skirmish the day after, which happened to be July 4th, during the Civil War. The book itself was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for Best Fiction, and I believe that it fully deserved such an award. The Four Days of Gettysburg were among the bloodiest days of the Civil War, and Michael Shaara recreated such an emotional and important time with more humanity and feeling than a textbook could ever muster.

   The book is written in a 3rd person omniscient manner: it assumes the viewpoints of some key figures from Gettysburg -- General Robert E. Lee, General James Longstreet, George Pickett, Richard Ewell, Lewis Armistead, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, and many more are among those picked for their unique stance and view on their role during the Battle of Gettysburg. What impresses me is that Shaara manages to humanize them, and capitalize on the actual person rather than what they did -- throughout the book, for example, General Lee's days are marked, as he feels his body slowly weaken. Longstreet is constantly seeing the mental visage of his predecessor, the famous "Stonewall" Jackson. In full, this book fleshes out the individuality of the men, how each had his future and his past.

   Brief Intro: A spy for the Confederacy marks out the Union position, which is frighteningly close, which leads General Lee to move and cut off the Union from Washington. A separate Union force moves into Gettysburg, and the two armies meet and ready themselves for the next four days, perhaps the hardest days they've ever seen, or perhaps their last days.

   This book is undeniably unforgettable, with a page-turning urge with every word. I rate this, easily, a 10 out of 10.

The Killer Angels: A Novel of the Civil War - Characters

Book by Michael Shaara, 1987

http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1355371689l/682804.jpg

[CHARACTERS]

   ROBERT E. LEE: The overall idea with how the story is written with Lee is that he has less than a decade of life in him, as he has heart problems. He prefers the old ways of war, the traditional approach to a battle, though his second-in-command, General James Longstreet, has newer ideas about how to deal with the Union. Despite his age and degree of frailty, Lee commands with inspiration, and keeps morale high, even after the Confederacy lost many men with Pickett's reckless charge ordered by Lee.

   Lee doesn't change much at all in the book -- he is nearing the end of his life and has seen many years of war. He sticks with his idea of offensive war throughout the book, conducting attempts to control areas or hit-and-runs to the end, where the Confederates are forced to retreat. His personality never changes either; he remains a relatively humorless man who reveres God, from beginning to end. At the end of the book, during the end of the third day, the narrative states: "Lee knelt and prayed...This was the way, as God would have it. Face to face with the enemy, on the grounds of his choosing. End with honor." (Shaara 286) This was no different from how he acted in the first day of Gettysburg: he fought on the offensive completely, and often spoke prayer to the Lord. In the foreword, Lee was described: "He does not drink or smoke or gamble or chase women. He does not read novels or plays; he thinks they weaken the mind...He does not lose his temper nor his faith; he never complains." Lee remains this honest, clear-minded individual in the entirety of the book.

   Lee interacted with other characters in two different manners; one way in an honest and humorless manner, and the other way as a cold general. The distinction comes from Lee's responsibility and knowledge with how to deal with the situation: "He moved as if his body was filled with cold cement that was slowly hardening, and yet there was something hot and bright and fearful, as if something somewhere were about to break at any moment... 'There will be none of that.' Lee's voice was cold and sharp. He spoke as you speak to a child, a small child, from a great height." (Shaara 279-81) Lee recognized that the man he was speaking to (Stuart, who'd been absent and needed) and knew that this man was needed to win the battle. However, his absence had led to many more deaths than what was ever needed. Lee also, when not acting cold, took an honest, humorless way of speaking when interacting with other characters. "He paused. Hard to speak in this fashion. Longstreet was staring with cold silent eyes, Lee said sternly, "You have a very bad habit, General, of going too far forward.' Longstreet said, 'You cannot lead from behind.' 'Well, let me put it plainly. I cannot spare you.'" (Shaara 86). Lee spoke honestly, and did so without making jokes.

   Lee moves the plot along by keeping control of the army, and ordering constant attacks which kept them on the offensive. Lee's tendency to attack rather than defend and his confidence in his men ultimately spelled out the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg. On the first day of Gettysburg, Lee ordered a massive attack to take the town, "Lee felt a thrill of delight... Rodes had come in on the right on the Union flank; blue troops were turning to meet a new threat. And Early was close behind...Another courier. 'General Early has arrived, begs to report that he is attacking to the north of General Rodes.'... Rodes and Early were attacking; Heth and Pender were waiting here in front of him. Lee's instinct sensed opportunity. Let us all go in together, as God decreed a fight here. He swung to Heth, 'General, you may attack.'" (Shaara 109-11) Later in the book, Lee's overconfidence and tendency to attacks left the army in shambles. "'General, you must look to your Division.' Pickett said tearfully, voice of a bewildered angry boy. 'General Lee, I have no Division.' He pointed back down the hill, jabbing at the blowing smoke, the valley of wrecked men...'What about my men? Armistead is gone. Garnett is gone. Kemper is gone. All my colonels are gone. Good God, sir, what about my men?'" (Shaara 345) Lee's attack on the last day left his army unable to fight. In total, Lee moves the plot along with his tactics, first taking the town of Gettysburg, then losing it all in a reckless attack. In a way, Lee moves the entire book along by himself, as he dictates the entire movement of the Confederate army in the area, which is almost always on the offensive, and loses the Battle of Gettysburg.

Related Page: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/biography/grant-lee/

This is a old rock song from 1985 about the days of Gettysburg:

The Killer Angels: A Novel of the Civil War - Theme and Summary

Book by Michael Shaara, 1987



http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1355371689l/682804.jpg



  [THEME AND SUMMARY]

   SUMMARY: The first half The Killer Angels detailed the cluelessness of the armies, how both the Union and the Confederacy were essentially stumbling around in the dark, until a spy, previously an actor, gives a report on a large Union force within hours of James Longstreet's Regiment of the Confederacy, leading them to head to Gettysburg to cut them off from Washington. Simultaneously, John Buford's Regiment, a Union troop, was also heading to Gettysburg.

   Buford stays on Cemetery Hill, just outside of town. His dismounted cavalry defends the town from a small Confederate force, and is joined by an infantry to successfully hold the town. Robert E. Lee, the famed General of the Confederacy, has several of his Regiments force a surrender of the Union from Gettysburg, initially.

   The second half of the book details the larger battles of Gettysburg. Lee , after taking the town, slowly battles the Union down south several hundred yards, where the Union takes a Little Round Top, a hill, as its main headquarters. Lee engages the enemy, but is repeled, and tries again, with Pickett's Charge, which weakens the Confederate army down to 60%.

   THEME: The theme of the book is: There is never a single side to a situation. This applies to The Killer Angels in a few ways:

   Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, an ex-professor and in command of the 20th Regiment of Infantry of Maine, wrote an oration in his youth after a discussion with his father about a quote from Shakespeare, listed in the book: "What a piece of work is man...in action how like an angel!" (Shaara 126), his father then responding on how man must then be a "murderin' angel, a reference most likely to humanity's addiction to war. Chamberlain titled his oration Man: The Killer Angel, which is most likely the source of the name of the book. Chamberlain's oration detailed the duality of man, how we may sometimes be 'angels' and other times 'killers'.

   Additionally, being a novel of the Civil War and the fact that civil wars are wars fought against yourselves, it was witnessed in Buford's first hours in Gettysburg, he saw a general of the opposing army, from a distance. "He saw the lone officer. Buford waved. You never knew what old friend was out there. The Reb officer took off his hat, bowed formally. Buford grimaced: a gentleman." (Shaara 39) In another related part of the book, it described the troops refusing to shoot an officer because he was brave. Stonewall Jackson claimed "I do not want them brave, I want them dead!" Though this is commonly attributed to Jackson, it was found on page 128.

   The theme of the book, about every situation having multiple sides, is applied to the Civil War, specifically The Killer Angels, by having men realizing they may be killing old friends, or gentlemen, or men who have held so strong that they were admirable, even if they were an opposition.

Related Page: http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/gettysburg.html?tab=facts