Their is an old film called “The collector.” The premise of which relies on the idea of “Stockholm syndrome.” I think their are two clear instances of this in the book. I think Lo experiences this syndrome towards Carrie and she even asks herself if she is feeling this way towards Carrie. She starts thanking Carrie for bringing her things and is even trying to cooperate with her despite the fact she is her captor. Then of course, Carrie also has then syndrome towards Richard. She can see “the writing on the wall.” She has to realize that Richard does not actually love her and that he plans to eventually kill her. This is pointed out to her rather aggressively by Lo but she completely denies it and instead reaffirms for devotion and love for Richard.

Do Ben or Judah have Lo’s best interest at heart?

Who did you think were behind the murder before it was revealed?

“Are you completely sure? You’re not exactly the most reliable witness. And at the end of the day, what did you actually see?”

I think this quote kind of highlights the struggle that you as the reader, and the characters in the book have. Nothing that the main character has said has been able to be verified. I should of see it as “she is thinking what we are all thinking.” But more importantly I think this also highlights the self doubt we see throughout the novel. We see Lo doubt her own memory and eyesight. She doubts her own abilities as a reporter in some parts of the novel. she has self doubt whether or not she is safe as shown by her double checking every lock on every door. Overall this highlights her self doubt and her role as an unreliable narrator.

“Humans will eat almost anything if you put a little salt and butter on it. and the butter is made from our milk. Makes me feel oddly complicit and guilty.”

I picked this quote because I feel like its a major theme of the book. We eat cows, chicken, and other animals and I suspect we all understand this feeling of doing regardless of feeling guilty. I think that line also speaks to how we, as people, have our own role in this even if we wish we could forget or feign ignorance. The cow continues to let herself be milked because its normal and keeps the status quo as well as keeps her current lifestyle. This is like how people do the same thing in regards to eating meat. Everyone else eats meet, family and people at events expect to eat meet and no one wants to disrupt that status quo or change lifestyles regardless of the feelings of guilt.

In this new short story, I think the quote “They look like what you aren’t expecting. What
you aren’t paying attention to” is most important. I think is the general theme for all monsters. That they dont look like what we expect because we expect to see something totally alien. So unlike us. But in the majority of stories they are eerily similar to us and that is what is truly frighting about them. For example, Edward Cullen looks like any other kid but he is a “monster.” The Phantom of the Opera, he is literally still a human but still called a monster. Monsters dont look like what we expect because they look just like us.

My idea for the deep reading assignment for the class is the idea of “nature vs nurture.” Or just in general how much someones upbringing affected the characters and the outcomes of the events that happened in the novel. I think if you look at the history of these characters we can explain there actions and see how there actions were predictable and maybe even inevitable. If I cant seem to get the information I need for this kind of essay than I might have to deal with the themes of “heaven vs underworld, good vs evil” but I would like to find something more creative or challenging than that if I can.

In this next few chapters of Phantom of the Opera, Erik reminds me of the character “dracula.” Specifically the one in the castlevania universe. Just like Dracula, Eric prefers to live secluded from people, his retreat is heavily trapped, just like draculas castle, and finally, both do things that would ward off others from entering. For example Eric places the machinist in such a way that people would stay away from passages leading to his retreat. Dracula places heads on spikes outside his castle to keep others warding away. And while Eric may be human, he talks about himself as if he is not human and explains the faults in humans. Eric seems to be able to “entrance” people or hypnotize them similar to dracula. I think comparing there characters to much would be a stretch but I cant help but see similarities in them.

Reading further into this text im enjoying the novel more and more. It is incredibly difficult at times to know who it talking, or who perspective we are taking, but all and all I like it. There are some questions I of course have from my readings though.

Does Raoul have any right to be mad at Christine? I would say no, he does not. You could argue that Christine strings him along by saying how she loves him at different points. But I think before it got to that point it was mostly Raouls entitlement and self imagery of how Christine should feel (according to him) that lead him to believe he has been wronged. Not only that, but she has told Raoul to leave her alone more times than she has said the opposite.

Another question I might is whether or not Christine accepted the gold ring from the phantom of the opera out of love, or fear. I think she is doing it out of fear and self interest. I dont think she is ready to give up what the “angel of music” has done for her singing. But I also believe she thinks she was in danger if she did not accept. She also deeply cares about Raoul and cares about his safety as well so she accepts in hopes of keeping her friend/love interest safe as well.

In the phantom of the Opera chapters one through five we delve into a very chaotic scene being described by a detective. As we move through the story we start to learn more about the phantom and more about the romance that occurs in the story. An important quote that highlights both the romance and the phantom is on page 65 of the book, which reads…

“He said you you: “Chrinstine, you must love me! at these words, a deathly pallor spread over christines face.”

To me, this is an important quote because the facial expression Christine made we later find out is because she believed the phantom to be someone only she could see and hear. But since raule could hear him, it means that he is a real person and it tells the reader and the character at the same time new information about the phantom. Up until this point, we never got any solid evidence about the authenticity of the phantom. But now we do. It also tells you how the phantom feels towards christine. How he feels she MUST love him and there is no other way.

Cohen’s “Monster Theory” talks about how monsters were created by mankind for multiple reasons. Among them, being able to demonize what would be considered unacceptable and to point out flaws in people or the systems they have created. A quote from the reading I think perfectly sums up what I mean.

“The monster signifies something other than itself.”

Now of course, times change. The same problems monster are used criticize are not always the same problems that exist later in life. The author addresses this by saying

“No monster tastes death but once.”

What the author is trying to say is that monsters always come back and are changed in a way to represent modern problems and viewed through a modern lens.

There is a book that came out in 1955 called “body snatchers.” The book is about aliens that come to earth, and kidnap humans, and replace them with aliens that have all the same memories as the one replaced. These human copies only live to five years. Eventually the whole planet is replaced and the aliens move on. This is supposed to be a take on human behavorior. Its the idea the aliens arent repulsive. They are only doing what humans themselves do. They use up resources, wipe out indigenous populations, and destroy ecosystems. Like Cohen states, the aliens represent something other than themselves. In this case, the aliens are representing human behavior in a way that really hits home given the state of climate change and its cause.