Articles by lkelly6

You are currently browsing lkelly6’s articles.

So, I’m not sure how much I like this book. Just as I get engrossed in the story, I have some obnoxiously long footnote to refer to.  The footnotes are like another story. Half the time I skip over them, and come back, or the other half I try to read them simultaneously and then I just lose my spot on the page (as I rented a large print edition from the library, which I’ve never had to read before and ironically, its blinding me from reading easily). Also, the Spanish which I cannot translate, and all the nerdy references from Oscar – it feels like to read this book; I have to do an insane amount of research. But I do like the basics of the story once all that research is pushed to the side.

Then there were all the Spanish lines. Is it Spanish? Some variation of it? I don’t know. I bugged my roommate this entire weekend, asking him to translate because he speaks Spanish/Portuguese = Spanport? And I remember very little Italian, so the two of us actually didn’t get anywhere with this. As a construction worker, he understood more of the foul language than the descriptions/statements. I was pleased to translate a total of 4 words: �Cono, pero tu si eres fea�. I understood this to be something along the lines as, �but you are still ugly�. Nice momma, for real.

And! All the nerd references. I was nice and lost into the story, and then the narration disrupts by: “Even a woman as potent as La Inca, who with the elvish ring of her will had forged within Bani her own personal Lothlorien, knew that she could not protect the girl against a direct assault from the Eye.” (in my book its pg 227, I have no idea where that is in the class edition) Anyway, these little references kill the story for me. I literally think, “hullo Oscar” whenever the historical story of his mother in Bani gets compared to Lord of The Rings.

Anyway. I also looked up the name Oscar, because I was wondering if there was a reason Foer and Diaz picked the same name. It means, ‘Spear of the Gods’ in Old English, or ‘Lover of Deer in Gaelic’. I guess there’s not really a connection.

There are a few different sub-stories, and different narrations. I’m not really a fan of Beli’s, because it makes me really uncomfortable, but I do like the descriptions of her first love: Jack Pujols, with his ‘Eyes of Atlantis’ or ‘deep dolphin eyes’.  Anyway, Beli kinda scares me, or offends me. I can’t decide which. I think as a younger girl, she offended me for her actions  and then when she’s older, and fake cries to get Lola back and then smiles like a tiger — that would scare me.

The sub-story I like the most is from Lola’s “friend” that becomes Oscar’s roommate. I feel like I get a more real description of Oscar’s life, or at least the sort of interaction a non family member/non nerd friend would experience when living with Oscar. I think the best part was the questions � the inquiries that the readers were privy to:

“These days I have to ask myself: What made me angrier? That Oscar, the fat loser, quit, or that Oscar, the fat loser, defied me? And I wonder: What hurt him more? That I was never really his friend, or that I pretended to be?”

^ pretty heavy. Especially if you think of all the possible outcomes those two questions can have:

1) Oscar quit because he was never a friend.
2) Oscar quit because he pretended to be a friend.
3) Oscar defied him because he wasn�t his friend.
4) Oscar defied him because he pretended to be his friend.

And then all the lovely analysis for each possibility.
Lola is nonexistent in my evaluation. I like how she treats Oscar, but she made me mad with how she dismissed Max when she had to go back. And then he died, and she says:”what happened was that one day he miscalculated – heartbroken, I’m sure – and ended up being mashed…” the nonchalance pisses me off. “I’m sure”. Hmph. I hope he wasn�t thinking about her when he miscalculated and maybe that little mongoose creature lets her in on that sometime in the future.

Also, wondering if this �mongoose with black pelt and gold eyes� that appeared in Bani�s life when she was beaten, and then Oscar�s life when he jumped will have more of a summary at the end. I find it interesting though that it helped Bani get up, and motivate her with the two upcoming children, but with Oscar: “Dude had been waiting his whole life for something just like this to happen to him, had always wanted to live in a world of magic and mystery, but instead of taking note of the vision and changing his ways the fuck just shook his swollen head.”

And, was kinda thinking about the treatment of women in this novel. Besides Lola, every other feminine character lives a sad life. I found a quote in Abelard’s segment: “Young women have no opportunity to develop unmolested in this country.” The word ‘unmolested’ makes me cringe.  It holds true for Bani. And with all the vulgarity I translated, the theory holds true all around.

Sorry for the length. I didn�t know where to go with this. I still don�t know where this story is going anyway. And it keeps changing its narration and subject and languages and reality and nerdism.

just a thought

remember when we were reading The Road and we had a discussion on the iconic coca-cola? Here is a picture of the bottles coca-cola has used from 1899 to 1986. Just wanted to share because it went along with what we were saying at the time: the permeance and the symbolism of this well loved icon.

This has been my favorite book this semester. I like the ending, although I think finding the closure is optional to the reader: and if optional, then stretch for it. On the last page, 326, I noted this word to be key: backward.

Within the series of everything going backwards:  Backward to the subway, backward to reading the NY Times, backward whistling, there is a profound statement that lacks this direction: He would’ve gotten into bed with me.

Then back to backward with the stars, the talking, and then : I’d have said ‘Dad?’ backward, which would have sounded the same as ‘Dad’ forward. This is the only time in this backward page that forward is an option.

After the last page of text there is a flip book. Of a man falling backward, away from the ground and back into his building. What’s important to note though is that Oskar changed this order. On pg 325, “I ripped the pages out of the book. I reversed the order, so the last one was first, and teh first was last. When I flipped through them, it looked like the man was floating up through the sky”.

So maybe Oskar has found closure. He’s ok with his Mom falling in love again at the end, so some barrier seems to have been brought down. He put his pages of ‘Stuff that Happened to Me’ in a more hopeful order. Dad backward is Dad forward, and I feel like Oskar has finally understood his Dad to be a statement of someone he loved with fond memories that he misses, instead of Dad is no longer of a question: How did Dad die? Why did Dad say ‘are you there?’ 11 times, etc. etc.

Not sure. Here again I’m struggling trying to talk about this book.

Anyway… I have my own picture of New York. My entire family lives on Long Island, so going to Manhattan is a common occurence. This is May 2001 and I am standing on Liberty Island (when people were allowed to walk up into the crown of the Statue of Liberty and see quite a view – maybe even the 6th Borough…) Behind me are the Trade Towers, and the clouds around the towers remind me of a halo…

5/01 Laura WTC

I have one all time favorite passage in this book (and I’ve read ahead and finished it), but still Oskar meeting Mr. Black is my favorite scene. On page 165, Oskar fixes his hearing aid, “We looked at each other. Then out of nowhere, a flock of birds flew by the window, extremely fast and incredibly close. Maybe twenty of them. Maybe more. But they also seemed like just one bird, because somehow they all knew…” The next page is a snapshot of about 16 birds, all wings spread and utilized and I can actually hear the soft beats of their wings, “…exactly what to do. Mr Black grabbed at his ears and made a bunch of weird sounds. He started crying – not out of happiness, I could tell, but not out of sadness, either. ‘Are you OK?’ I whispered” (168).

This is such a perfect placement of the birds, right in the middle of that sentence, when the first half of the sentence actually reaches the last line of the bottom right page, and then the visual gets a full spread, completely harnessing a different set of senses that subconciously were already prepared to see birds in flight – cause that’s what was already in the readers mind, and then to see it take form on paper..

I also like how Oskar’s narration includes the description of the birds – he says they flew “extremely fast and incredibly close”. This is not the first time part of the title has appeared in Oskar’s descriptions, yet it is the only one I have marked :( However, I like that the title is a recurrent theme in the novel, exactly word for word, because it makes me think precocious, particular, Oskar picked the title.

Which is another thing. When I read, I’m very aware of the author behind the narrator. I think the last book that a character completely bewitched me into thinking, this is a completely real person, was Catcher in the Rye’s, Holden Caulfield. And now, Oskar completely has me. I feel ‘incredibly close’ to Oskar himself for his bluntness and innocence. Also, I feel there is no effort on writing his person of a traumatized 9 year old, that’s incredibly smart and socially different as well.

I think its his hidden yearnings of violence, actually, that reinstate how realisitic Oskar can be. When Mr. Black tells him he is done with the searching, “His hand was still open, waiting for my hand. I told him, ‘I dont understand.’ I kicked his door and told him, ‘You’re breaking your promise.’ I pushed him and shouted, ‘It isn’t fair!’ I got on my tiptoes and put my mouth next to his ear and shouted, ‘Fuck you!’ No. I shook his hand….” (254). I love it because when Oskar starts narrating in this voice, I know immediately it is in his imagination because his narration lacks any indication of feelings. Every few sentences from Oskar are just filled with his sentiments: he is so emotional, he really can’t keep them out of narration. There is also page 146 which Oskar imagines himself taking over the stage during Hamlet and smashing JIMMY SNYDER’S face. His blood. I knock…skull against his skull, which is also RON’S skull (for letting MOM get on with life) and MOM’S skull (for getting on with life) and DAD’S skull (for dying) and GRANDMA’S skull (for embarrassing me so much) and DR. FEIN’S skull (for asking if any good could come out of DAD’S death). THE AUDIENCE. Thank you! Thank you, Oskar! We love you so much! We’ll protect you!” pg 146) Oskar’s so smart he even continues his imagining in screen play format. He is so angry with everyone, really, but its really not his genuine self to lash out – he’s just not sure how to handle his trauma, which only makes it more traumatizing.

But! I’m confused. Maybe I missed something prior to pg 146, but I don’t remember DR. FEIN asking Oskar if any good can come out of his father’s death before pg 146. I only remember it from 203, when Dr. Fein asks Oskar that extremely touchy question (what 9 year old wouldn’t think this way? I’d probably think this way as a 23 year old): “I kicked over my chair, threw his papers across the floor, and hollered, ‘No! Of course not, you fucking asshole!’ That was what I wanted to do. Instead I just shrugged my shoulders” (203).  More hidden anger. Oskar really reminds me of Holden Caulfield. The next few pages where he can only hear snippets of the conversation between Dr Fein and his mother is juxtaposed accordingly next to that picture of Stuff that Happened to Me, the body falling from the trade towers. If I read this snippets aloud, I have a good idea of who says what, but I just thought, how completely accurate that the most definite statement Oskar would hear is the ending, “absolutely no way…hospitalize my son”.  This part kind of made me hurt a little for him, because if the book took that turn and hospitalized Oskar.// well I odnt know if I could read it anymore. Oskar’s already so painful to read sometimes, but he is just a 9 year old that doesn’t know how to handle this, despite all his intelligence, and that is what gives me the bond to him, that I’m really hoping for him, smiling genuinely when something cute happens because poor Oskar needs it to happen. Oskar’s character, Oskar himself, is Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.

On Tuesday, Professor Sample mentioned we’d discuss names on Thursday. I was absent on Thursday, but it did get me thinking about the lack of names.  I personally like it. By choosing to identify the characters as ‘man’ and ‘boy’, McCarthy inspires many thoughts:

1) loss of language (continuation, as we discussed this in class before). Formal and developed language have proper names. Saying ‘man’ and ‘boy’ make the reader focus more on their roles, not their identities. For example, the ‘man’ is supposed to be the resourceful one, the protector, because the ‘boy’ is small and dependent. The boy calls the man ‘Papa’ to emphasize his critical dependency on this man.

2) Why bother? I mean, they are the only two people so if they are talking, it’s obviously to the other. This connects back to loss of language. There is no reason to have titles when there is only 1 other person on Earth for you. It goes back to instincts: this is my boy, this is my papa and that’s it.

3) I think if the boy was named Steve or something, we would formulate a different image of him. I remember a passage in the book, that the boy had big eyes in a starved face, making him look like an alien. This made me think of him as a very ghostly child, one that fits his mundane and empty world. If he was named Steve, I’d imagine him to be a modern boy stuck in a dusty barren landscape, and he would be very out of place. The boy was born after the disaster, and never lived in a world where there were enough boys around that they all needed specific names. Since he was born after the disaster, never saw other boys, why does he need a name?

*Hm. Speaking of never seeing other boys, the main boy was really upset when he saw that boy. His papa said ‘you didn’t see a boy’, and he cries ‘I did, we could go back, what will happen to the boy?’ This made me wonder if there really was another boy. It’s entirely possible, and maybe he was just hiding? But I kind of had the idea that the boy imagined this other boy, because he is lonely and him and his father don’t have much in common. His father comes from a world that he knows nothing about; he doesn’t understand his father’s references etc. I also think the boy imagined this boy and was concerned about him “but what about the boy?”, but the boy was really worried about his own self. Gradually through the book, the boy knows that his father is dying and the world is dangerous. Maybe by seeing this other random boy, the boy is projecting himself, “what about me? what will happen if its just me?”

movie blog on The Road

I picked the middle paragraph on page 83 where the man and boy are watching the rain inside the truck.

Starts with dog howling, nothing visual. This brings all attention to the howling dog. Then it would open with the camera showing a light gray smog, symbolizing the start of morning.  Focuses on gray slices of rain slowly dropping from the sky, watching until it goes faster and faster. Then the camera pans out and the audience sees the rain “dancing” in the road, in wavy sheets. Off to the side of this shot, is the car under the overpass. The camera makes a smooth pan under the overpass and looks on the roof of the car. The camera then focuses and zooms in on the rain drops hitting the windowshield, then focuses behind the windowshield where it shows the man and the boy looking out at the rain.

The next shot would be inside the car, maybe coming from the seat’s angle, so the view is looking up at the man and boy. This would create a more cramped feeling. The car would be old, dirty. They would be sitting against each other, any extra cloth like blankets or jackets they have at the time shaped into a nest around them. The boy’s big eyes in his starved face would be equal to the man’s shoulder, with a scraggly beard on the top of the boy’s head. At a profile angle, their eyes would be facing the window. Then the camera would refocus on the window, showing the rain slowing down. It would show the blankets on the floor of the seat, look back through the window, and then be back outside following the man and the boy walking up the road towards the houses. It would go completely gray, as they walked out of sight, then black like the beginning. There would be a pause where if this was filmed seamlessly, the audience would recognize the dog howl was missing.

Tags: ,

Optional makeup blog

I think it’s interesting that Parable of the Sower chose to end on a verse from the Bible, when Lauren’s Earthseed is so prominent in the rest of the book. I mean, Lauren’s father is a minister, her family is steeped in Babtist origin, and Lauren admits that she has a hard time believing the standard Christian religion. Her Earthseed versus defy an omnipotent all powerful One God by calling “Change” her God. At the end of the book, Lauren and her group make Bankole’s land “Acorn”. They are starting a new community, and the group of people were referred to at some point in the book as “[lauren's] congregation” by Bankole. After they decide to stay, call it Acorn, bury their dead, and plan out shelters and gardens. So why not an Earthseed verse that encompasses it all? Why pick a verse from the Bible, Luke?

I think it’s an interesting juxtaposition to forsake Earthseed verse as the last line, as the summary, and revert back to a Biblical verse. No doubt the verse does the summary of the novel justice, is it because Lauren couldn’t think of anything better to write as Earthseed? Or is it a memorial for her father, or her origin? A sort of respect for the history of her spiritual learning, that inspired her to create Earthseed?

I couldn’t be sure if this was a weird inconsistency or some deeper parallel that I’m missing the logic to? Any thoughts?

-Laura Kelly

Parable of the Sower

Lauren is a total protagonist. Within the first few pages, she establishes herself as a strong individual. At age 7, she tells her [step]mother she prefers the stars rather than the city lights. To her mother, city lights symbolize “lights, progress, growth…The stars are free. I’d rather have the city lights back myself, the sooner the better. But we can afford the stars”. Yet Lauren puts no price on the stars. She lies back, knows the constellations, seeks meteors. I find it interesting that the stepmother tells Lauren “stars are windows into heaven…Windows for God to look through to keep an eye on us” and then Lauren turns out to be a deeply spiritual character in the book – she even creates her own religion Earthseed. I think this first chapter says a lot about how the book is going to span out: Lauren rathers stars, which means lack of cities and communities, which means danger and isolation. But Lauren is ok with this sparse yet dangerous outer wall world. She studies how to use native plants to her advantage. She knows how to shoot a gun. She comes up with the idea to make a grab and run pack. All this is foreshadowed from page 5, “the neighborhood wall is massive, looming presences…crouching animal, perhaps about to spring, more threatening than protective” . Seven year old Lauren is subconsciously ready to establish herself as survivor/leader.

Through chapter 10, Lauren slowly becomes more forceful in her survival beliefs by expanding her knowledge, toning her hyper empathy and creating a pack of crucial tools and materials. Her Earthseed sermons become more of God being of the natural environment, change and invidiual mental behavior than just an omnipotent source.

last blog on white noise

Shoot. My copy of the book is 45 minutes away, in a house with no internet. So taking this from memory…

My favorite scene in White Noise is when Babette is on T.V. Recall that noone in the family knew this prior. Jack even wonders if Babette knew it was going to happen and failed to tell them for whatever reason, or if she was as surprised that her posture/breathing class was being recorded. Either way, I suppose Babette’s answer isn’t really important. Just another question left unanswered between her and Jack.

Anyway, they’re all mesmorized to see their mother/wife on the screen. An important note is that the TV was already on. It’s always on. White Noise is always around their household, and it mostly comes from their other family member (the TV set). But when Babette appears on screen, she also becomes white noise. If I remember correctly, the book said she was staticy, fuzzy, distant. Another thing that struck me is no one turned up the volume. Seeing her on the screen was enough white noise transmission for the family. I got the feeling to turn up the volume would make the white noise overpower Babette as a person, and overpower her family as they watched her.

What I also liked was Wilder’s reaction. He stopped crying and was completely transfixed on Babette. He, out of everyone in the book, is the most observant but the less symbolic. He isn’t trying to find deeper meanings/sentimentality/connections with things that he sees, like everyone else. So I feel this scene of Babette on TV is kind of shared between two parties. Jack and the other kids are completely thrown to see Babette embody their main source of white noise, while Wilder just marvels at his mother.

I also liked this scene because as far as I can remember, this is the only time Wilder interacts with the T.V.  The set is always moving,  and every family member uses the T.V. and it is constantly on. Wilder is always moving around too, every family member appreciates him and moves him around, so in a sense, he is always on too. The TV produces white noise, imposes the kids to ask weird questions and respond with even more off the wall answers. Wilder produces a peace, and a desire to not even have any questions, let alone ask them.

Wilder and the TV are never together until this scene and perhaps Babette being on T.V. gives Wilder his first interaction with white noise, or perhaps Babette being on T.V. and pacifying Wilder through it lowers the level of white noise for everyone else (thus why they don’t wish to turn up the volume)

route 66

I have the pleasure of sitting in rush hour traffic on route 66west when I leave campus and head towards my house. Firstly, I noticed the noise emitting from my own car. Even with the radio off, there is a subliminally low, yet high pitch whirrrrrr of my car, esp. when the a.c. is on.  When I’m not moving on 66 (which is most of the time), I can hear other people’s cars. Some have a death rattle, others sputter, others purr. Trucks roar. Pistons steam, pssssst. When there’s a gap of movement, usually someone accelerates too enthusiastically, and then has to stomp on the brake. Tires screech. Cars jolt. Trucks’ chains clank. Now and again, someone’s radio will be ridiculously loud. Salsa music to 80′s elevator music mashes in the air. People get irritated and horns honk. Cops eyeball the hov lane and turn on their sirens. They speed past in the shoulder – whooooosh. There is electrical wires like a thin bridge over 66 – with my sunroof open and stuck in the jam, I can hear a sizzle and crack of the power jumping overhead.

So what symbols can be inferred from all these noises? Obviously congestion. People on 66 become drones. Together the pack of people forfeit their true enjoyments and passions and clamor in line to be safe, boring: to make the safe dollar at a boring office. Then, with all the whirs, purrs, clanks, and honks, symbolizing their impatience to get home, so they can have the few hours left of the day to really do what they please. The snapping and sizzling of the electric current over 66 is a powereful oppression. Even off the road, above us to spacier levels, power and waves congest the air.

For me, all this white noise “pyschic data” in the mundane stretch of 66w from 5-7, is intelligible. And its codes and messages are rather depressing.

-laura kelly

So I was realizing reading the book that I don’t like the characters’ names. Maybe they’re too old, or maybe too similar (Harvey, Hardy, Hamner and Harry…) so I flipped back to the Dramatis Personae in the beginning of the book. What I found interesting is the descriptions the authors’ chose for the women. Eileen, ie, is “Assistant Manager for Corrigan’s Plumbing Supplies of Burban” (go Eileen.) Marie Vance is “Gordie Vance’s wife”. What I noticed is the only two people who don’t have description is Mrs. Gloria Delantey (not really sure why she’s listed, she was only in one chapter), and Loretta Randall! She doesn’t even get “wife” tacked on. Epitome of true uselessness.

Anyway, that’s thought one.

Thought two:

Humans as Gods! I only noted two passages. There might be more, but these stuck out to me. Page 491: “astronauts from Hammerlab! you won’t believe them. They look like gods. They look like they never went through the end of the world at all.” Well, technically, they didn’t. But that triggered the thought that everyone who was on Earth, instead of floating above it, is marked with a very characteristic appeareance: frightened, hunted, haunted, starved, dark.  And then on pg 509, “For a few minutes, possibly for as much as a whole day, Dan Forrester was safe. He could count on living until dawn. It was a strange feeling.”

I wonder if Dan’s general appearance changed in that one day of guarenteed life. The authors’ don’t even really describe the expressions, but by these two passages (spec. the first), these appearance changes are subliminal in describing, but totally obvious in contrast.

And my last thought, and probably the one of real interest, is I noticed a lot of Koran/Muslim references when talking about the New Brotherhood. I wanted to know if anyone could think of a reason why. I found two passages that draw the parallel. The first on page 524, when marvelling about the size of the Brotherhood, Harvey says, “Mohammed began he had five followers. In four months he controlled Arabia. In a couple years he controlled half the world. And the New Brotherhood has the same kind of growth incentive.”

Interesting. Harvey couldve drawn the parallel with Hitler. I mean, he got a huge following in a short time, and he was violent, join or die type guy. But why did the authors’ pick Mohammed, not Hitler?

Second passage: 568pg. While fighting the Brotherhood, Marie says, “Its officially dawn. Muslim definition. When you can tell a white thread from a black one. It’s in the Koran.”

Soooooo. Kind of got the impression that Marie isn’t Muslim, so why are the authors’ quoting the Koran and then using it as a premonition of the Brotherhood’s advancement???

Any thougths?!

-Laura Kelly

Personal Ad for Harry the Mailman


I’m laid back sort of guy. I am very cheerful and enjoy making personal connections with people on my routes. Some offer me coffee, most are friendly. I appreciate this fully. I am dutiful to my job as a postal service worker. I also make mail deliveries more enjoyable for people by sparing them the junk mail. I filter this out into “Happy Trash Day”. Most people really enjoy it. My boss doesn’t so much, but he’s too uptight. I’ve got a great beard and long hair. Really, I’m very cheerful and simple.


I’m still fairly laid back. I didn’t really know what was up with all the rain, but I still remained dutiful to my job. I even dodged bullets just to put mail in someone’s box. I still asked for coffee. I still went through the end of the world cheerfully singing. I’ve still got my great beard and long hair. I’m still trying to be cheerful despite hammerfall.

just sharing a thought.

What attracts us to end of the world…novels/movies, etc?

I remembered a quote by Markus Zusak in “The Book Thief” that I think answers this pretty well…

“I guess humans like to watch a little destruction. Sand castles, houses of cards, that’s where they begin. Their great skills is their capacity to escalate.”

-laura kelly.

I have to admit, every page I turned in this week’s reading was upsetting. I want the end of the world catastrophe to hit! There are many characters, but only one really provides me with mutliple, thougthtful speculation: Fred Lauren. In class we discussed how the book is filled with contrasting couplings (old money v new money, emotional v rational, street/nature/common sense smart v technical/educated smarts), but I think Lauren has a very cryptic contrast. He is completely different from all other characters, a solitary observer and not much is revealed except that he has mental issues and sex offenses. No other character in the book is mentally unhinged like him.  No other characters even seem to have quirks/ticks, let alone full out violent pyschological tendencies.  I think Fred Lauren’s personality/mind is a symbol of the comet. On page 110: “Fred’s eye suddenly painted it with flame. The stucco wallow around the window flashed blinding light, which died slowly to reveal curtains flaming…Fred saw her bathed in the light of Hammerfall. Colleen glowed like a star…robe charring, long blonde hair crisping, blackening, flaming…and she was gone before they had met. Fred turned away from the telescope.” Its as though Fred’s distant watching is equivalent to the distant comet. Fred sees a firey death of Colleen, and later on the book tells he kills her. So Fred ( the comet) kills Colleen (the rest of the world), in fire. Does anyone else feel that that Fred embodies the comet’s ultimate purpose? And then when Fred does kill Colleen, gruesomely by taking her breast and drawing an arrow in blood to her genitals, I thought it was a symbol for the end of fertility, reproduction, motherhood. Just like the comet will be taking life, mother Earth. I think Fred Lauren is an eerie and perverted foreshadowing of the comet’s goals and capabilities.

by: Laura Kelly