Stephen Hawking and his book appear many times throughout this novel. I believe he might actually be the reason Oskar is so depressed. After playing for his class an interview of Tomoyasu who experience first hand the bombing of Hiroshima, Oskar shows his class one of his own little experiements that has to do with light's attraction to figures on paper and how it can burn letter-shaped holes. “I held up the sheet of paper, with the first page of A Brief History of Time in Japanese, which I got the translation of from Amazon.co.jp. I looked at the class through the story of the turtles” (190). To understand this section as well as other parts of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, we need to take a look at Stephen Hawking’s book as well. A Brief History of Time begins with a description of a lecture in which an old lady confronts the astronomy lecturer by suggesting the whole world is sitting on the back of a giant turtle. The lecturer responds by asking what this turtle carrying the world is sitting on. The old lady then retorts, “It’s turtles all the way down.” This idea, that the world is essentially only a very small, finite part of an infinite world (of turtles) is pretty depressing because it forces the idea that a human being is pretty insignificant. It is through this lens that Oskar literally looks at his class, and perhaps the rest of the world.
While Hawking’s book scientifically argues that mankind is not the center of the universe, Oskar’s dad tries to convince his son that a human being is significant. We’ve already discussed the ideas on page 86 in which Oskar’s dad tries to teach him the significance of a human life. It seems as though Oskar is caught in between two of his own heroes: his dad, who argued that human life is important (although he has died), and Stephen Hawking who argues that human life isn’t as important as we think it is (yet still is alive). But he also associates Stephen Hawking, more specifically Hawking’s impersonal letter, with events that are mysterious or sad. The very impersonal response from Hawking appears on page 12, after which Oskar tells his mom “ I have something incredibly wonderful that I want to preserve.” It also appears so far in our reading on pages 106 and 200. I’m not sure what the repeated appearance of this letter means. However, I feel that the impersonal nature of this response has to do with the way Oskar is feeling throughout the novel. Oskar spent the time to write this man a letter, yet all Hawking can do is send him a typed response telling Oskar how he doesn’t have enough time to respond personally. This must make Oskar feel very insignificant. Oskar depression starts with the death of his father, a real hero in Oskar’s eyes, but continues with the lack of personal connection with his other hero, Stephen Hawking. This is just one way, in spite of Hawking’s argument that humans are insignificant, that one person or one book can influence another person’s life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with Tasha’s comments on the relation between Oskar’s idol, Stephen Hawking, and his father, Thomas Schell. In the sections that we have read thus far, Foer makes a point to randomly include Hawking’s response to Oskar’s letter. What purpose does the inclusion of this completely impersonal letter serve? Stephen Hawking in his book, A Brief History of Time, argues the relative insignificance of the human being and ultimately the insignificance to the entire human species and human history. Oskar admires Hawking and so it can be argued that to a certain extent, Oskar follows this view as well. However, Oskar’s father feels that each person is significant. And Oskar loves his father above all other people and one could therefore assume that Oskar would follow his father’s ideas also. This creates conflict for Oskar and he is constantly pulled between those two ideals: Oskar is an atheist yet wants a reason for existing. As Tasha stated, Oskar’s father, who feels that each individual being is significant, is dead, and Hawking, who does not feel that way, is alive, which creates even more conflict for Oskar. He does not know what to feel or how he is supposed to think about things and is merely searching for answers. I think that Oskar’s search for answers is not only his search for a reason for existing, but also a search for an answer to prove that his father, his idol, was right. Oskar wants to be able to prove that yes, each and every individual human being is significant. And he tries to do so by connecting with strangers. Somehow it is as if connecting with strangers is a way to create bonds and a way to be human. Being human is something significant. Humans are a part from animals; we are more “significant.” And if connecting with people is human, then connecting with complete strangers, people we know less, kind of proves more our significance. Oskar’s quest is his journey to come to terms with not only the loss of his father’s death but also to come to terms with being human and finding ways to be significant in spite of the incomprehensible greatness of the universe.
ReplyDeleteI am also interested in the random insertion of Stephen Hawking’s letters—as well as the other letters included in Happiness, Happiness. What is the meaning behind these seemingly random letters? Clearly, the novel as a whole has repeatedly emphasized the idea of letters, communication, and connection in the world. This is seen throughout the narrative, primarily in the grandmother’s search for the refugee and compilation of letters, not to mention that the grandmother’s and the grandfather’s stories are both written in a letter format. But to focus on the most recent reading, I would like to look further into the seemingly random insertion of letters in Oskar’s story. Because it is written in stream of consciousness, the prose is likely to seem rather random, but when looking closely, the letters may have a significant meaning.
ReplyDeleteThe first letter is found on page 193, and is from the cab driver that Oskar had promised to pay back. Its placement was not as mysterious as the others. Oskar had simply been explaining the events in his day when “Stan said, ‘You’ve got mail!’” (192). However, it does prove that Oskar did make somewhat of a difference in one person’s life. The cab driver claims, “Now I will believe everyone” (193). Despite Steven Hawking’s belief in the insignificance of human life, Oskar does impact the lives of others. The second letter is on page 197, and is from an accomplice of Dr. Kaley, the elephant researcher that Oskar referred to in The Only Animal. This letter is specifically placed here, because it is directly after Oskar asks Alice Black, “Can we kiss?” (197). Not only does he ask this exact same question to the Black whom he talked about elephants with earlier, but it also reminds the reader of the ideas in the chapter, The Only Animal, again. Human beings are the only animals who cry and who kiss. I’m sure the significance of this will become clearer as the novel continues. The next letter is found on page 199, and is a rejection to Oskar’s request for a reference (for Dr. Kaley). This letter was placed here, because it is similar to the email Oskar had just sent to Allen Black. Though Oskar was disappointed, he was polite. In the same way, though Jane Goodall was rejecting Oskar’s request, she was still very formal and polite. The final letter was yet again, the response from Stephen Hawking. I believe this was placed here, because it comes just after Oskar receives no response from Arnold Black. Oskar did not receive a proper response from Arnold Black, just as Stephen Hawking responds with only the “hope of one day being able to give each the proper response it deserves” (200). In both cases, Oskar is left wondering and without a response.
With deeper exploration, it is easier to see why these letters may be inserted where they are in a stream of consciousness style. However, as with many other themes in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, I am sure the significance of these letters will become clearer as the plot progresses.
The above commentary by Tasha and Samantha is very eye-opening and thought-provoking. I too had been wondering about the recurrence of the impersonal letters. I think that in addition to their analysis, it is also important to remember Oskar's precociousness when analyzing his difficulty with being able to agree with his father's notion of human significance. Oskar is practically a genius. He is very smart and scientifically-oriented, and therefore he is attracted to concrete evidence, like Stephen Hawking's book offers. He looks up to Stephen Hawking for his research, that is why he calls the letter "something incredibly wonderful." It is contact with one of his idols. However, this is a clear contradiction to Hawking's argument, as Tasha mentioned at the end of her post. Hawking argues that humans are actually quite insignificant in the whole scheme of things. Yet this letter, as short and impersonal as it is, has had a huge affect on Oskar. This is where the conflict comes in. Oskar's other idol, his father, believes that anyone can be significant and make a difference in the world on an individual (or grain-of-sand) basis. Oskar reconciles these two feelings by exploring it for himself. He experiments with meeting other people, complete strangers actually, a scientific approach for a scientifically-oriented boy.
ReplyDeleteAnother aspect of Oskar's precociousness is in his ability (or inability) to express himself. While he is so smart, he is still as emotionally advanced as the average nine-year-old and is dealing with subjects and feelings that are very difficult for someone that age to understand and express. This is ultimately another reason he is much more susceptible to concrete evidence as a way to explain and describe everything around him. He understands facts, statistics, and research so much better than he can understand the abstract (like emotions, or human interaction, or the significance of living).
Anyway, back to the letters! I think the recurrence of the rejection letters in this section (pp. 197-200) operate as two different devices. First, they are a parallel to the let downs Oskar is experiencing in his search. No one seems to know anything about the key or his father, and none of his scientific heroes are able to give him what he needs. Both Dr. Kaley and Stephen Hawking don't even write Oskar a personal letter back, and Jane Goodall will not write Oskar a letter of recommendation. These are huge let downs that are building tension in Oskar's life. The letters also demonstrate that human contact does not have to be personal or intentional to cause such an affect on others. I doubt that Stephen Hawking thought his cookie-cutter letter would be of such importance to Oskar, but Oskar probably did not expect to make Arnold Black cry by just standing in his doorway, either. All of this proves the novel is arguing that Hawking's opinion is far too desolate, lonely, and depressing to live by.
TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for ENERGY or WAVE, both are analog with MAGEN DAVID (Judaism). "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is the metaphore, also seven times circling around the Ka'ba and oscilating in the Sa'i during the Hajj.
ReplyDelete"A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME - From the Big Bang to Black Hole" by Stephen W. Hawking is the best scientific interpretation of AL QUR'AN by a non believer. Surprise, this paradox is a miracle and blessing in disguise as well. So, it should be very wise and challenging for Moslem scholars to verify my discovery.
NeoSUFI visionary strategic thinking.
PHILOSOPHIA PERENNIS.
ReplyDeleteThe Old Lady’s TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for WAVE (energy), both are analog with MAGEN DAVID (Judaism). "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is the metaphor, and also similar with allegory of rituals Thawaf circling around the Ka'ba and Sa’i oscillating along “the sinus” Marwah-Shafa (seven times) during the Hajj pilgrimage (Abraham). CROSS (Christian) and SWASTIKA (Buddhism) are symbols for “Balance of Nature.”
"A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME - From the Big Bang to Black Hole" by Stephen W. Hawking is the best scientific interpretation of AL QUR'AN by a non believer. It is also a “genuine bridge stone” for comprehensive study of Theology. Surprise, this paradox is a miracle and blessing in disguise as well. It should be very wise and challenging for Moslem scholars and others to verify my discovery, for then we should know the Mind of GOD.
I am just “ordinary people,” so would you mind correcting my point of view. Thank you.