The Strugatsky’s 1972 book Roadside Picnic ends with a single wish: “Happiness for Everyone, for Free, and don’t leave anybody out!”. Spoken by Red, a wish for happiness captures the idea of a dystopia, as ironic as it sounds. As a stalker, Red collects artifacts in a dangerous ‘Zone’ left behind by a brief alien visit that did not contact humanity. The visit and the Zone reveal the insignificance of humanity, yet the humans focus instead on the strange artifacts left behind. In Red’s speech to the golden ball, an object that grants any wish, happiness captures an ideal filled with exploration and limitless possibilities which to Red is represented in the dystopian Zone. This wish reveals what it means to be human: striving towards perfection that is impossible to obtain because to Red, the Zone represents happiness, but the Zone simply cannot coexist with happiness.
Red, although his actions sometimes do not reflect his morals, is a good character overall. When it came down to making a wish for anything his heart desired, he did not make a selfish or malicious wish, instead wishing for happiness for all. His concern for Kirill, Guta, the monkey, even the Vulture and Archie for the most part, displays his good nature
…show more content…
deep down. Throughout the novel this trend continues, the only thing somewhat out of character being Red’s sacrifice of Archie in order to reach the ball; however, he hated himself for it, calling himself an “animal” (145). Red is a character who strikes out on his own, disillusioned with the ordered, overly precautious, and under-rewarding means of exploring the Zone outside of stalking. He wants to be in the Zone because of the endless possibility it holds, yet the real rewards are structured and detached from it. His obsession with exploring the Zone explains his aloof nature and orientation towards the Zone and away from the rest of the world: Red personifies a ‘creature of the Zone’. Red would overall rather live in hope and aspiration, through his own means of exploring the Zone, than in the real world where there is actuality and certainty and even danger is sanitised, limited, and controlled. Red’s seemingly aloof personality encompasses that of the Zone, and is an impact of his fascination with uncertainties and adventure. With such a mindset it is perhaps unavoidable that Red views anything except the Zone as unreal or unable to last. The Zone’s potential to change lives for the better or for the worse leads everything surrounding a stalker’s, especially Red’s, life outside the Zone to be dependent on the ‘swag’ gained. The “good times” only follow good swag gained as Red’s life revolves around whether or not his ventures into the Zone pay off. His fascination with the Zone and it’s endless possibilities allow him to forget about his dependence on the Zone itself and get wrapped up in the joy of being there. His experiences and the effects of his profession as a stalker overall produces a character of hope and aspiration, as reflected in the Zone itself and the myriad of possibilities present there. To Red, happiness, a very broad and diverse term, encompasses the idea of endless possibility, which is embodied by the Zone and Red’s passion for exploration. The Zone allows Red to escape his unrewarding and predictable everyday life: it embodies the idea of impossibilities is transformed into potential possibilities. Red’s attraction to the Zone is a measure of his desire for potential, for overcoming seemingly miserable conditions. Red even articulates this, uttering he felt “happy just looking” at the Zone (28). Yet when Red comes face to face with the golden ball intending to wish for anything he’d desire, he is unable to think of the words. “Intelligence is the attribute of man that separates his activity from that of the animals. It’s a kind of attempt to distinguish the master from his dog, who seems to understand everything but can’t speak” (130). In a way, the Zone allows humans to become more intelligent and closer to the aliens through means of exploring their technology. Red’s wish, though technically not his own, reflects the idea of striving towards significance. Red's life throughout the novel is entirely based off of one possibility: whether or not he brings home swag from the Zone; however, when confronted with the golden ball, he finds himself completely frozen and unable to choose something he would like to actualise: “I don't have the words, they didn't teach me the words. I don't know how to think, the bastards didn't let me learn how to think” (145). Red is frozen while thinking of a wish not just because he has lived hoping for something new, but due to his experience in the Zone along with the knowledge that things can change, utterly defining his existence as a stalker. To pick a possibility and live with it exiles Red from the land of perpetual becoming, the Zone. This exile would not be living at all, which is inevitably why Red chooses to wish for happiness, an end result rather than a means of gaining happiness. When it comes down to it, Red just wants to be happy, like a kid in a ‘Zone’ candy store. The Zone and the unknown possibilities within represents happiness to Red, as his wish ironically demonstrates his desire to be in the Zone-like dystopia for eternity without being dependent on it. Striving towards something we cannot reach, the Zone and happiness simultaneously coexisting, define what it means to be human as reflected in Red’s last wish. Without desire and curiosity, humans lose what ‘makes them human’. The end of the book and Red’s wish follows expectations due to his profession as a stalker. The Zone in general relays the idea that although humans do not understand aliens and their rubble left in the Zone, they contrastingly demonstrate what it means to be human. Kirill, a science oriented character, described this phenomenon best while uttering, “[w]e know that everything changes, we’re taught from childhood that everything changes, and we’ve seen everything change with our own eyes many a time, and yet we’re totally incapable of recognizing the moment when the change comes or else we look for the change in the wrong place” (126). Change is what Red seeks, as demonstrated in his stalker profession and his love for exploring the Zone. The possibility of change is what drives Red, yet as a human, fascinated with the alien rubble, he does not consider the fact that he is insignificant and unworthy of contact. His wish simultaneously skims over the idea of insignificance as well, focusing instead on the Zone’s possibilities and endless change in humanity’s perspective of the world. “If anything in the universes changes, we will happily become extinct -again, precisely because we’ve lost the art of making mistakes” (130). Humanity completely revolves around desire, curiosity, and making mistakes. The aliens’ short visit to Earth reveals this truth to Red, and he knows that the Zone is what he lives for and what makes him happy. Red’s wish alongside his character in general reveals truths, and possibly flaws, surrounding humanity: striving towards an utopian ideal that is simply not possible to obtain. Red’s wish for happiness, including the Zone and simultaneously not being dependent on it is impossible, yet defines what makes humans human.. Red’s final wish in Roadside Picnic reveals a lot about humanity and what it means to be human.
When compared to the aliens and their rubble, we are insignificant, yet Red’s life and his meaning of the word happiness, the Zone and the adventuring within, uncovers secrets about humanity that would not be evident without the contact. Striving towards an impossible perfection, through the Zone, a picturesque dystopia, being represented in the word ‘happiness’ mirrors Red’s disregard for the fact that aliens find humanity unworthy of contact. His wish overall does not express the idea of endless curiosity and desire that truly encompasses happiness to Red, yet he still wishes for “HAPPINESS FOR EVERYBODY, FREE, AND NO ONE WILL GO AWAY UNSATISFIED!”
(145).
In contrast to Aristotle, Roko Belic’s documentary “Happy” provides a fresh perspective that takes place far more recently. The film sets out to similar goals of Aristotle in defining the nature of happiness and exploring what makes different people happy in general. Unlike Aristotle, however, the film’s main argument refers to makes people happier. In this case, the film argues that merely “doing what you love” is what leads to happiness (Belic). The argument itself appears oddly self-serving, considering that message is what underlines the foundation of happiness, yet there is a subliminal message that a simpler lifestyle is what leads to what the film is trying to convince you of. The message itself is obviously addressed to Americans, considering
In Shirley Jackson’s short story the Lottery and Flannery O’Conner’s “A Good Man is Hard to Find”, there are a few aspects of a similar nature that attempt to tackle the nature essence of the human condition. Both short stories respectively portray two similar types of foreshadowing where one is random the other is premeditated, which leads these stories to their very surprising dramatic climax that is held until the end of each story. I believe that these important variables of both stories have a strong influence on the reader’s objectification regarding the way each story presents the idea of the human condition.
The struggle between happiness and society shows a society where true happiness has been forfeited to form a perfect order.
All in all, Chris McCandless is a contradictory idealist. He was motivated by his charity but so cruel to his parents and friends. He redefined the implication of life, but ended his life in a lonely bus because of starvation, which he was always fighting against. Nevertheless, Chris and the readers all understand that “happiness only real when shared.” (129; chap.18) Maybe it’s paramount to the people who are now alive.
What would happen if an utopia wasn’t all that perfect on the inside? Judging by just the appearance of something may lead to a situation of regret and confusion.” The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” by Ursula K. Le Guin and “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson address the theme of religious and traditional symbolism.” The Lottery” demonstrates how something that seems so perfect on the outside isn’t all that great on the inside.
Thinkers and philosophers have been pondering misery since the dawn of civilization. At the dawn of humanity, humans existed to survive and reproduce; every day was a struggle. However, with the advent of civilization, humanity has moved further and further away from its original evolutionary drives, and it can be argued by secular thinkers that humans exist now to find happiness. Therefore, misery can be seen as the biggest obstacle to human happiness, yet misery itself is a mystery to many. Karl Marx’s The Communist Manifesto and Sigmund Freud’s Civilization and its Discontents put forth the authors’ opinions on the origins of mortal misery, and suggest methods to solve the problem of misery. Although the two have differing views, both see
The American Dream is said to be realised through hard work and perseverance ; it is ostensibly a reachable goal for anyone who chooses to exercise their ‘inalienable right’ to the ‘pursuit of Happiness.’ This ambiguous phrase, ‘the pursuit of Happiness’ was originally inserted into the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson and is a clear and overriding concern in The Great Gatsby. In the 1920s, when the novel is set, America was experiencing a newfound level of prosperity; the economy was booming and the possibility of gaining wealth became an achievable reality. As a result, the pursuit of happiness in The Great Gatsby is far from the founding fathers’ initial intentions and instead, in this new context, Fitzgerald demonstrates the confusion of happiness with money and social standing. American ideals were replaced with a fixation to gather material wealth regardless of consequence, and success no longer required hard work. Fitzgerald clearly depicts this mutated pursuit of happiness through the setting and characterisation in the novel. Revolutionary Road similarly reflects this altered American pursuit through the naivety and self-delusion of the characters and their actions.
Many people value the tangible over the complex. However, viewing the world solely through this definite lens is an oversimplification. Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We explores this flaw in a society founded solely upon its government’s definition of the “ultimate happiness.” To reach utopia, it eliminates inefficiency, crime, and despondency, by promoting state-led happiness. Despite these admirable goals, the One State’s methods sacrifice freedom, individualism, and, ironically, happiness itself, ultimately failing its mission. Zamyatin explores the emotionless routine within the One State to assert that happiness cannot exist when controlled and rationalized.
Atwood’s “Happy Endings” retells the same characters stories several times over, never deviating from clichéd gender roles while detailing the pursuit of love and life and a happy ending in the middle class. The predictability of each story and the actions each character carries out in response to specific events is an outline for how most of us carry on with our lives. We’re all looking for the house, the dog, the kids, the white picket fence, and we’d all like to die happy.
Within the real world individuals constantly ask: Does money actually equal happiness? Money doesn’t equal happiness, money equals superiority or privilege and happiness equals desire. Similarly, in Scott Fitzgerald's’ The Great Gatsby, Tom, Daisy and Gatsby portray money equals superiority and happiness equal desire by the actions they chose to make as well as their deep sentiments.
Everyone in the world has one thing in common. Every single person wants love. Ted Hughes’s beautiful poem “A Moon-Lily” uses an extended metaphor to compare a moon-lily to love. At the poem’s beginning, the speaker describes the “moon-lily” as “marvelously white” (1). The speaker uses the color white as a symbol of purity, wholeness, and completeness. A person feels whole and complete when they are in love. The speaker is implying that the flower is love and that the love is pure. The persona uses this image of love to describe the type of love one person tries to give to another. In this poem the person giving the love is the woman and the person refusing their love is the man. In Hughes’s “A Moon-Lily” the speaker compares a moon-lily to
As in this example in “Flower Garden,” Shirley Jackson uses color throughout “The Lottery,” “Elizabeth,” and “Flower Garden” to symbolize a persistent theme of underlying cruelty in everyday life. Although she achieves it sometimes through a shocking twist as in “The Lottery” and sometimes through subtle characterization as in “Elizabeth,” human malevolence is common in Jackson’s works. It is difficult to imagine a writer with a greater focus on the subject. Jackson has taken a clear position regarding the question of the humanity’s true nature. It is up to the reader to decide whether to follow her views or reject them.
The story starts out in what seems like a beautiful, organized and happy place called the omelas. The Omelas is a green happy utopia where music plays everywhere, and where everyone is full of joy. Le Guin tries to make this place seem as happy as possible but as the story progresses it gets darker, and i think this was done on purpose because every utopia is a place where things seem to be fine at the surface but in reality it isn't. This utopia which he says everyone is happy in seems like its a false statement because over time he says people are getting less and less happy and smiles have become a thing of the past, which again goes back to same idea of the utopia, happy but not happy. Le also talks about the kids being very happy and racing
For years, authors and philosophers have satirized the “perfect” society to incite change. In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley describes a so-called utopian society in which everyone is happy. This society is a “controlled environment where technology has essentially [expunged] suffering” (“Brave New World”). A member of this society never needs to be inconvenienced by emotion, “And if anything should go wrong, there's soma” (Huxley 220). Citizens spend their lives sleeping with as many people as they please, taking soma to dull any unpleasant thoughts that arise, and happily working in the jobs they were conditioned to want. They are genetically altered and conditioned to be averse to socially destructive things, like nature and families. They are trained to enjoy things that are socially beneficial: “'That is the secret of happiness and virtue – liking what you've got to do. All conditioning aims at that: making people like their inescapable social destiny'” (Huxley 16). Citizens operate more like machinery, and less like humans. Humanity is defined as “the quality of being human” (“Humanity”). To some, humanity refers to the aspects that define a human: love, compassion and emotions. Huxley satirizes humanity by dehumanizing the citizens in the Brave New World society.
Beyond the shield of civilization and into the depths of a primitive, untamed frontier lies the true face of the human soul. It is in the midst of this savagery and unrelenting danger that mankind confronts the brooding nature of his inner self.