Psychology

“The Fault in Our Stars” by John Green is comparable to his book ”Looking for Alaska“ for various reasons. The Fault in Our Stars was written from a female perspective while Looking for Alaska was written from a male perspective, both young teenage voices however. They are both written about the lives of young teenagersi. Not typical teenage lives, but typical for them Lives affected by various things such as family issues, living away from home, both physical and mental illness, and of course, love. Both books have a serious undertone throughout the book; however. The Fault in Our Stars has a bit of a lighter, bouncier tone for a large portion of the books Each book exhibits themes of growing up, and death, more specifically unexpected death at a young age.

The different books’ respective characters deal with the unanticipated deaths quite differently Pudge, in Looking for Alaska, seems to base his life on Alaska’s’ death, and portrays an undying inability to separate his own life from her death, whereas in. In the Fault in Our Stars, Hazel Grace handles Augustus’s death differently. She tells her story prior to his death, and leading up to it, focusing on his life After he dies, she tells of his death and various important events after.  In Looking for Alaska, Alaska’s death is much more abrupt than Augustus’s in The Fault in our Stars. As soon as you start reading. The Fault in our Stars you know it is about cancer, so you know someone is going to die, granted you assume it will be Hazel-Grace, and it ends up being Augustus.

However in Looking for Alaska, as you go throughout the book you see the chapters are number oddly, twenty days before i fifteen days beforehand so on and so forth. The reader thinks “before what?” The reader recognizes that something is coming, they just do not have any idea as to what that is, but it was easily assumed that it was counting down to when Pudge and Alaska would get togetheri. Then Alaska proceeded to abruptly escape from the world almost as quickly as the reader got attached to her and the idea of her prospective relationship with Pudge. Both of the books however much related they are, are exceedingly more different than alike in my opinion.

This is based on the fact that they have completely different tonesi. Yes, they both are about teenagers, and finding oneself, and death, but Looking for Alaska has a more serious, down-to-earth, kind of tone, whereas. The Fault in our Stars is more of an upbeat, lovey, and sarcastic tone, with the exception of a few mildly serious parts of the book. John Green did an exceptional job with both books however and is a great author, which I have determined after reading these two books, and seeing how easily he can use the same basic concepts and plots, and twist them using tone, and other literary techniques

At first glance, Fight Club seems to be a rather screwy movie about a man with Schizophrenia or some type of Multiple Personality Disorder. But looking at the movie with an open mind and a bit more in depth, it is likely that one might notice that the main characters in the film resemble Sigmund Freud’s structure of personality. The Id and the Superego are plainly noted in the actions, thoughts, and words of the two main characters: Tyler Durden, played by Brad Pitt, and “the narrator” (or Jack) played by Edward Norton. Many examples can be noted in reference to the different aspects of the personality along with references to different defense techniques from anxiety throughout the film.

When taking a closer look, Jack can easily be noted as the superego side of the personality. Freud saw the superego as the side of the personality that inflicted guilt onto a person, the conscience, the “perfection principle.” The superego is like Jiminy Cricket in the classic Disney film Pinocchio. It is like the little angel that appears on a cartoon’s shoulder when they are trying to make a critical decision. The superego does not take risks, it does not seek fun, exciting, and adventurous times, and it does not look at pain as any type of a gain. Itcounteracts the Id with a primitive and unconscious sense of morality.

The Superego, Freud stated, is the moral agent that links both our conscious and unconscious minds. The Superego stands in opposition to the desires of the Id. The Superego is itself part of the unconscious mind. As the conscience, it is a primitive or child based knowledge of right and wrong. Jack is just that. He lives a simple life ordering furniture from catalogs. Knowing that if he can have his apartment look as if it is right out of a magazine it is a safe bet. He works for a major car company and investigates crashes to mathematically determine whether or not there should be a recall on the vehicle. He does his job well and he lives his life well. Each day is predictable and monotonous, never varying from the next. It gets to the point of complete mundane and Jack muses up an alter-ego, an imaginary friend of sorts.

But as Tyler says, “the things you own, end up owning you. It’s only after you’ve lost everything that you’re free to do anything.” Tyler Durden is introduced to the audience on a plane when Jack is on his way back from one of his many business trips. Tyler makes soap for a living (along with a few other odds-n-ends jobs like waiting tables), he lives in a run-down house in the middle of a run-down neighborhood (if it can even be called that), he is extraordinarily good looking, and a sweet-talker. Tyler is everything Jack wishes, dreams, and hopes he could be. Sigmund Freud described the Id as having a psychic energy and the part of the personality that seeks pleasure. It is organized around primitive instinctual urges of sexuality, aggression, and the desire for instant gratification or release. There is no doubt that Tyler Durden perfectly represents this aspect.

Though these two roles are rather obvious and quite undeniably drawn out for the audience, there is a conflict with the role of the ego. In Freud’s view the Ego stands in between the Id and the Superego to balance primitive needs and moral beliefs and taboos. He thought that the Ego consisted of our conscious sense of self and world and a highly structured set of unconscious defenses that are central in defining both individual differences in character or personality and the symptoms and inhibitions that define the neuroses. Relying on experience, a healthy Ego provides the ability to adapt to reality and interact with the outside world in a way that accommodates both Id and Superego. Is the ego represented by Marla, the drugee, alcoholic, and yet logical thinker when compared to the other two main characters, or was there simply no ego represented in the film at all?

It would be possible to view Marla as the ego for a few reasons. She seems to appear at critical times in the film when a conflict is arising between Jack and Tyler. She is the one that raises questions about “Jack’s” odd behavior and she is the one that notices the sudden changes in attitude. Marla is also the one that triggers thoughts in Jack of reality and the falsehoods he has been living for such an incredibly long period of time. The only problem with this view is that Marla is not always the mediator between the two, but often times she is the root of all evil, the basis of all arguments.

It may also be said that there is no one character that plays the role of the ego in this film, but that it is the fight club itself that maintains consistency with the Id and Superego. The group as a whole, the collective nature of the fight club is what keeps everything in tact. Each member of the groups has a responsibility and that is to keep the other members on top of their duties as a member. They are all responsible for not only themselves and their own actions, but as a collective whole as well. Again, the problem seen here is that the fight club does not always play the role of mediator, but as instigator instead. There is not always a time when the fight club is keeping peace between the two. In fact, it is often times seen as the reasoning behind an argument or battle.

Finally, there is the idea that there may possibly be no ego represented in the film what-so- ever. The constant conflict shown between Tyler and Jack near the end of the movie would imply that there is nothing there keeping the peace between the two. Jack begins to become Tyler. He progresses into a totally different state. His work ethic drops to nothing, he no longer lives in a high- class setting, and his efforts on appearance have become infinitesimal. There is no happy medium between the two. When one personality trait begins to merge with another, there obviously can be nothing there to keep both separate and happy at the same time. The only problem with this view is that Freud would not see this as possible. There are three structures to personality and without all three, you have nothing.

Contrary to this idea of there being no ego shown in the film Fight Club, several defense mechanisms of the ego are shown throughout the film. Defense mechanisms of the ego include repression, regression, reaction formation, projection, rationalization, displacement and many, many more. Many, if not all of these defenses are shown in the film. Repression is pushing an action, memory, or even a feeling back into the unconscious mind. This is shown in the film through one of the most famous lines in the movie: “The first rule in Fight Club: don’t talk about fight Club. The second rule in Fight Club: don’t talk about Fight Club.” These rules allow Tyler, Jack, and the other members of the club to repress their actions and use this as a coverup. They are not allowed to talk about what is happening or how they feel about it.

Another defense mechanism seen in the film is regression. Regression is reverting back to a prior state of mind, usually back to some childhood like state. Tyler is seen as the mastermind of numerous childish pranks in his role as the leader of the club. Though these pranks cause inconceivable damage, harm, and injury, they all seem to have a twist of childish glee to them. When a large building was set on fire, the rooms which were ignited were meticulously planned out so that, when viewed from the outside, a considerably large smiley face could be seen. Another “prank” played by the group which ended in the death of a member involved letting an oversized concrete ball roll off of it’s pedestal and create havoc. Many of the pranks performed by the group were seen as comical to them and never really as being harmful in any way.

They were able to regress to another state of mind and therefor saw no problems with anything they had done. Yet another prank, quite possibly the ultimate prank, was the final terrorist occurrence in the film. The idea behind blowing up all of the major credit card companies was that it would erase all debt and create total havoc amongst society. But what classifies this as childish is what Tyler says to Jack about it. Tyler picks the tallest building with huge, clear windows to watch it from because it was going to be the best fireworks show they had ever seen. What can be more reminiscent of gleeful days as a child than the giddy feeling one might get when watching the ultimate display of lights and loud noises?

Projection and displacement were also seen in the film. These defense mechanisms involve placing one’s wrong, harmful, and unwanted acts and behaviors onto something or someone else. This can mean anything from hitting a pillow to get out one’s frustrations to placing one’s own blame onto someone else. These are quite the obvious mechanisms used. There is possibly no other greater act of displacement than hitting another human being, and this is what the fight club is all about. The sole purpose of the fight club began as being to beat the living tar out of another individual so that one guy might feel better about himself.

There were virtually no restraints, money was not involved, and the only fun being had was by the onlookers. Jack displays projection more than any other character in the film. He first blames Marla for his inability to sleep. He says that his insomnia is cured through the groups he attends weekly and her new found delight in these groups was completely destroying the settling effect they had on him. He is placing his problem onto Marla and blaming her. It may also be said that Jack projects his actions onto Tyler. Jack believes that it is Tyler orchestrating all of these horrible, heinous crimes when really it is himself.

In fact, the whole idea of Tyler Durden may be considered as a projection of Jack. At first Tyler is everything Jack wants to be, but by the end of the film, he is the exact opposite. He may still desire certain qualities of Tyler’s, but all of the bad things Tyler has done are no longer wanted. All of the things Jack is doing that he sees as bad, he places on Tyler. He plays no role in these inconceivable acts, yet Tyler is the conductor of them all.

All in all the movie does an excellent job, whether it is actually intended or not, of portraying the “Elvis of psychology’s” ideas on his psychoanalytic theory and his structure of personality. From portraying each personality determinant to a “T” to providing the defense mechanisms needed for

there to be a “happy ending,” the film appropriately depicts the battle that Freud believed our unconscious struggles with on a daily basis.

Having read “Ham on Rye”, “Fight Club”, and “Ghost World”, the three books that are representative of modern American culture, or for the most part, modern Western culture, I have noticed that they describe similar common features of what society has come to be. In a conformist-adaptive society, the non-conformist usually rebels against the social norms using force and sex.

These two innate instructions satisfy the need to escape from the world of structure and compliance in order to “fit in”. Therefore, people engaged in such activities are typically stigmatized by society as “bad people”, never able to achieve the American Dream. These three novels depict the pressure that society puts on its members at three different levels. Although each novel is different from the others, they all show a common denominator – some people choose not to conform.

The protagonist in Fight Club is a normal every day guy. He does not appear to be a freak. Yet, he realizes that he is imprisoned by the comodified world that surrounds him. He feels that his material possessions own him. In order, to rebel, he begins a fight club. The members of this club use violence as a means to escape pressure and to build-up the self esteem that society has robbed from them.

The author Chuck Palanuk, exemplifies the need to maintain a balance by inventing a fight club for the novel. However, in the end of the novel, the protagonist ends up in a mental institution. This is the place along with prison where people who are not capable of coping with social norms belong. This shows that niether extreme is good. In order to function in society one must realize the mechanical comodites of life and embrace them (without acting crazy).

In Ham on Rye, we see the need to escape society on another level. The story takes place in a low class society through Henry, a young boy’s perspective of life and the difficulties his father(his society)sets for him. He only knew violence as a means to deal with troubles. He never had a chance to fulfill the American Dream or perhaps, rejected it because that was what his father instilled in him.

For Henry, true accomplishments in life were to be a good fighter and to be tough to get ahead. The novel ends when Henry is still at a young age. However, even at a young impressionable age, he is obssessed with images of sex and actual acts of violence. Henry’s is not an attempt to escape his status. This is probably because his life is the only one he knows. The book is an example of how the American Dream cannot apply to everyone and is sometimes not ever achievable. Henry was imprisoned to his life without any hope to escape it. This was the ideology passed down to him by his father. This is obvious that the way a person is brought up reflects one’s aspirations.

Finally, in Ghost World, there is yet another violence different from the previous two. This violence or abuse is not physical but psychological. The two main characters Becky and Enid believe that society is once again comodified and exchangable lacking sustanance and authenticity. Therefore, they strive to be different by patronizing and belittling others.

In doing this, they feel that they seperate themsevelves from the unauthentic barriers of society. The girls are young developing adults. As they grow, they develop into two different people. Enid resists conformity and confides in her egocentric world. Becky on the other hand begins to conform by entering the workplace and dressing like the rest of society. Enid does not approve of her friend’s decisions and places her on the level of all the other naive people. After a while, Enid realizes that there is no escape from conforming and her only chance of nonconformity would be to leave town.

As all three novels have very distinct and different plots, they all share a general theme. Society instills norms in all its members and these norms are sometimes reasons for intense pressure. Although the desire to not conform may be extensive it is not healty to let it prevail. The American Dream cannot possibly function or be believed in such a non-fuctional society.

We’ve all been in the same boat before. Every time we take a test in an especially difficult class, we all remain hopeful for a curve that’ll help boost our grades…until we’re reminded of that one kid who just has to get a perfect score and screws us over. Don’t deny it. Despite all the hate we pile on the kid for sinking our hopes, deep inside, we all wish we were that kid, who’s always idolized by every teacher on campus and just breezes through every class while getting the best scores. Every. Single. Time. But instead of wishing we were Sahil or Margaret, we should focus more on the motivation and diligence exercised by such people.

Most people assume that being “smart” means spending a small fraction of their day doing school related things like homework and studying, leaving them a lot of time to have a life and do what they want. However, we’ve never realized that these “smart” people may actually spend more time on schoolwork than the average person. They study just as much as, if not more than, their peers and often take the time to explain a single concept many times in one day to different people. So, while some may not seem to “study” by re-reading the book, they’re constantly reviewing the materials when they explain something to their peers.

As Aristotle said, “Teaching is the highest form of understanding,” and because my friends apparently find my brain to somehow resemble a computer and ask me to teach them, I can say with a clear conscience that it’s true. While helping my friends, I’m often forced to reorganize my knowledge and make new connections so they can understand. After a while, I start developing a deeper understanding of the materials myself, which lets me apply the concepts to a broader range of questions. However, while grades in school are, by far, a superficial representation of a person’s capabilities, people still use them as a convenient scale of “smartness.” In school, where the “No Child Left Behind” motto left its mark in lowered standards, the smart and the diligent often can’t be distinguished by their grades. But in extremely competitive situations, only the diligent will prevail. For example, in the world of business, only approximately 20% succeed the first time, 35% for the experienced (Gilbert).

With such high chances of failures, surely the successful ones are masterminds out of Ivy Leagues. In reality, only some came from distinguished schools (Dave Packard and Bill Hewlett), others dropped out of college (Steve Jobs and Bill Gates) while others never even had formal education past elementary school (Wang Yung Ching). How is it possible for people from such a wide range of education to ultimately reach a common goal? These people were able to make their way through the world because they had two things in common: perseverance and drive. Perseverance and drive.

It’s easy to say, but once people start to understand everything without trouble, they’re no longer motivated to put forth their best effort. They start believing they’re the best. They think nothing’s worth their attention. They start becoming more and more stuck-up. But this attitude leads to near-certain failure and disappointment. In my Science Olympiad experiences, I’ve witnessed extremely smart people, straight-A students normally idolized by their peers, end up doing quite terribly in competition because they belittled their competitors, thinking that it would be an easy win for them. So, while having an exceptionally sharp brain can give a head start, it’s not infallible. Hard work, however, always pays off. It’s simply Nature’s way of evening the playing field.

Since Doodle was born, he has not been able to walk. Doodle has always been different and stood out from all the other kids his age. “The Scarlet Ibis”, a short story by James Hurst, Doodle has many good traits such as happiness and endurance; despite his disabilities. Doodle may have problems, but he still loved his still loved his life to the fullest and encouraged himself to live it. Although Doodle had problems, he still was full of happiness and admired the world, “It’s so pretty” he said, “so pretty, pretty, pretty” (2). Brother was a blessing to Doodle’s life for sharing the world with him that he would could of never known.

Even though brother was ashamed of Doodle’s disabilities, Doodle was happy to have a brother who wanted him to learn. No matter what Doodle’s brother did, he still loved him, ” I helped him up, and as he wiped the mud off his trousers, he smiled at me ashamedly” (2). As much as Doodle was messed around with or discouraged, he still wouldn’t let him it get to him. Doodle was creative and didn’t let being disabled stop him from showing his creativity even if they got annoyed. Doodle was happy no matter what was wrong with him or when somebody tried to discourage him.

Although Doodle’s problems were hard to fix, he was still steadfast about his brother’s challenges for him. Even if it was his brother who wanted Doodle to walk, Doodle was still willing, “Doodle, don’t you want to earn to walk? He’d nod his head” (30). Doodle looked up to his brother and wanted to please him no matter how hard it was. Sometimes Doodle got discouraged as well, but always kept on going. Doodle knew that his brother wanted him to walk, so he did everything he could to live up to his brother’s wantings, “Finally one day, after weeks of practicing, he stood alone for a few seconds” (4).

At points, Doodle was miserable, but he kept on pushing through it to get to his brother’s goal. Doodle didn’t even know if he could walk, but his brother believed in him so he believed in his self as well. Doodle’s endurance was a great trait in his difficult life. Doodle’s useful traits throughout the story make his confusing life more emotionally stable for himself. Having a disability would usually make someone insecure, but Doodle is happy with himself and confident with who he is. Doodle is a good example to others who are unhappy with their own life that don’t even have disabilities.

In the short story, “The Scarlet Ibis,” by James Hurst the frequent conflict of the

narrator, Brother, versus himself also displays the theme of guilt and blame. Based from Doodle’s older brother’s perspective, the story explores the guiltiness of the narrator because he is constantly contemplating on the fact that his brother’s failure and death was his fault. The phenomenon of Doodle’s death causes Brother to show his true guilt at the end of the story narrating, ” Doodle!’ I screamed above the pounding storm and threw my body to the earth above his.

For a long time, it seemed forever, I lay there crying, sheltering my fallen scarlet ibis.” (Pg. 564) Brother was disappointed with Doodle for not being a star athlete, like himself, yet the narrator expresses his blame on himself for abandoning his brother in the rain. He is telling the audience an emotional experience of his childhood and blames himself for not taking into consideration Doodle’s disabilities. Throughout the story Brother also gives examples of his cruelty towards Doodle; Showing Doodle his own casket, expressing his memory of wanting to smother Doodle, and portraying the disappointment of having a younger defected brother.

These examples of Brother’s cruelty toward Doodle all exemplify the guilt and blame Brother puts on himself when Doodle dies. By the narration, one might believe that Brother blames himself for the cause of Doodle’s death. Brother put so much pressure on Doodle to be like himself, yet didn’t comprehend the setbacks Doodle faced by being disabled. Furthermore Brother feels guilt for not being a better peer and brother to Doodle. Thus the conflict of Brother versus himself portrays the theme of guilt and blame.

In nearly all circumstances, it is good to challenge ones abilities, regardless of the consequences. The only way by which one will learn to improve is by challenging his limitations, exemplifying the old maxim practice makes perfect. However, in spite of the merit of the attempt, the consequences of attempting to challenge ones abilities may be devastating.

To challenge ones abilities, especially those abilities deemed sub-par, can hardly be construed as a malicious act, even if said act is an exercise in futility. The story The Scarlet Ibis, by James Hurst, centers around this concept of challenging ones abilities. These challenges begin when the narrator of the story initiates his attempts at turning his handicapped brother into an average youngster. Although these attempts are based on the inherent selfishness of the narrator, his attempts to help his younger brother have positive consequences.

Because the narrator had the impetus to help his brother, affectionately called Doodle, his brother was able to overcome one aspect of his crippling aspect, and learn to walk. This is definitely an example of how it is good to challenge ones abilities, as the challenge led to the adaptation of the ability to walk, which is an incredibly useful life-skill. The narrator also continued to try to teach Doodle to do other athletic activities with skill, such as swimming and tree-climbing. These challenges did not succeed as had their predecessor, but they were nonetheless the manifestations of positive thoughts, again exemplifying that to challenge ones abilities is positive.

The consequences of the challenges, as previously stated, do not necessarily reflect the importance of the challenges themselves. Although, in The Scarlet Ibis, the challenges of Doodles handicap can be construed as leading to his own death, this consequence is greatly dwarfed by the merit of the attempt at bettering Doodles physical condition.

Doodle so greatly benefited from his ability to walk that at an attempt to further his athletic prowess only seemed natural to his brother. And, in spite of the fact that these attempts were futile, and even led to Doodles own death, the attempts were reflections of love, reinforcing the belief that it is good to challenge ones abilities, regardless of the consequences.