1. House of Stairs by William Sleator
I started the book today, January 1, 2012. I finished the book today, January 1, 2012. This is how big--page-turning, and important book this is.
Important, yes.
(By the way, I started writing this post on January 1st, but I didn't finish, which is why the posting date is not the "today" of January 1, 2012, as mentioned in the beginning.)
Well, you can live through life without a book--what good is it to you, that much?
But it really makes you think. And it's from a start that you have an end, meaning at one point, beginning to read such mind-boggling books will influence you and make you read more of the-sort books, and sooner or later, you'll start understanding and seeing the world differently than one who hadn't read the book would.
And quite coincidentally, I borrowed five books from the library, and in the past three days, I've read three of those five books, and I've realized that they all have something to do with psychology. Extreme psychology, almost. Well, one book has something to do with psychology, but not as much as the other two.
To put it in the order of extremes, here they are:
House of Stairs by William Sleator
Invisible by Pete Hautman
The Kid Table by Andrea Seigel
House of Stairs is like a PG-10 book. Invisible is definitely PG-13 (13 because I read it, and I'm thirteen. xD) The Kid Table also definitely PG-13, more than Invisible.
But, quite sadly, I read Invisible and The Kid Table last year, December 30th and 31st (maybe 29th, too...? Not sure). Last year as in two, three(, four?) days ago.
So technically, the first book I've read this year is House of Stairs by William Sleator.
And because I'm lazy, I'm not going to write about Invisible and The Kid Table (probably because I'm not comfortable writing about certain topics, too...?).
I've also decided to apply school-learned topics into "real life" (although, I've never realized there was such thing as a fake life...). So I'm practicing MLA citations.
So, if you scroll to the bottom of this post, you'll see an MLA citation of House of Stairs by William Sleator. :D
After finishing this book, I summarized and told the story to my mom. The summary was not the succinct, to-the-point sort of summary, but just enough to tell her the storyline and main details to her, so that she could get an idea of the book.
And when I had finished, she told me it was like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (by Roald Dahl?), in a more difficult, hard-to-understand version (heh--I'd never looked at that book/movie that way).
But I had only watched the movie.
Anyhow, she said that (she also just watched the movie, by the way) in the movie, it was like Willy Wonka was testing each of their personalities and psychological thoughts to see who "fit" for the next Willy Wonka.
Sort of similarly, House of Stairs is like that. They are, sort of "testing" the five kids to see how much the conditioning behavior would go.
When I first finished this book, my thoughts were all jumbled up and unorganized, but I still had that feeling that there was something important Sleator tried to get across to the reader in this book. Something hidden, but really important.
I still haven't figured out how to put it in words. It's something to do with jobs, and how humans react daily. And there are smaller things, too.
So, to introduce the characters to you, there is Blossom, Lola, Oliver, Peter, and Abigail. I think the characters were named wonderfully. The names just fit their personality. Although it might just be how I think because I've read through the book and learned their personality through their names and thought that's how Blossoms are like, and Lolas, and Olivers, and Peters, and Abigails. That Blossoms are people who are smart and canny, but easily betraying and always thinking of how to help themselves and not others, because I read the book, and Blossom was protrayed as such character.
And, then, comes the point when you must name the pro- and antagonist. The people who are definitely in the protagonist field are Peter and Lola. It's obvious. Like Cinderella is the protagonist in that story, so are Peter and Lola (sorry for the pathetic simile--it's the only literary reference I could come up with at the time). And the obvious antagonist? The scientist dude at the end, in the epilogue. Dr. Lawrence. Now, the not-as-obvious in-between people are Blossom, Oliver, and Abigail. They were antagonist to the protagonists, but to the definite antagonist, they are the protagonist?
So when it comes to just the five of them--Blossom, Lola, Oliver, Peter, and Abigail, it's Peter and Lola versus Blossom, Oliver, and Abigail. But when it comes to the fact that Dr. Lawrence and his crew were actually experimenting on the five of them, the protagonist group increases three digits, because now it's the five of them versus Dr. Lawrence and Co. But the main point of the story was the experiment itself, because the fact that it was an experiment and that they were being tested on was included in the epilogue, which means that Mr. Sleator did not think that last paragraph was the essential part of the story as to be put in as an additional chapter. Therefore, I will come to the conclusion that--
Wait actually, I haven't come up with a conclusion.
They are all being tested. Although Peter and Lola are strong in personality and go for what they think is right, Oliver, Blossom, and Abigail go for what they want. Although that is their ultimate(ultimate because of Abigail personality change) personality, they are still, in a way, innocent (innocent as in not guilty sort of innocent, not the naive sort), in being dragged to do such terrible things.
So although they have been cruel, the true cruelty was the Dr. Lawrence & Co., because they are the ones who (technically) forced the three of them (O, B, and A just to be lazy and abbreviate) to act so... inhumanely.
Now, if you've just read up to this point, and you haven't read the book, you should read the book and stop reading this, because then it'd just spoil the ending. Technically, it already has.
If you weren't planning to read the book anyway, read the book anyway.
And... you're still not listening to me. But it's up to you. Spoiled ending or awesome book, your choice. (Hint: go for the awesome book.)
Anyhow, to continue my rant.
Conditioning, at first, was an unclear subject to me, only because I am slow in understanding, and I took approximately fifteen minutes rerererererereading the page that explained conditioning. Then, I looked it up, (same link as the one before) and I found a rather... easy, more clear example of conditioning. But it takes a while to read. But actually, you can understand the subject after reading just the first part, but I chose to finish the whole page (didn't bother to read the second--I still have some form of a life, you know). Psychology is an extremely intriguing, interesting, and complex subject. I would really like to dedicate some time in the summer to read a few books related to psychology.
(That wasn't sarcasm, by the way.)
(Now you know how much of a life I have--more like, that I don't have.)
(Anyway,) Conditioning is an adjective, I guess. (It's easier when a word is defined in dictionary form). Because the article (webpage, actually) mentions "conditioning experiments". Definitely not a verb. Actually, maybe a verb. Maybe it's a noun-adjective. A noun, that means. A noun-adjective-verb.
Okay, screw the part of speech attempt.
Conditioning is a type of reaction, I guess (not good at this, please forgive me if I define it drastically differently--inform me, too), when you are accustomed to a certain result when you go about making a certain cause. For example, the book. Every time they did the weird dance thing when the light was on, food would come out. The dance was the cause, food was the result. So they were conditioned (see, this time it's a verb!) to dance every time the light was on. The light was an assigned period of time in which they could attain food. I guess this is a form of Variable Duration, although it's not that accurate. Variable Duration is that you do a certain action during a certain period of time, fully, from the beginning of that "certain period" to the end, to bring about the result you want. For example, rubbing two sticks to make a fire. You have to keep on doing that action (of rubbing the sticks) during the "certain period" (which is the time it takes to make a fire) in order to bring about the "certain result" (which is fire).
Similarly, but not so similarly, they had that assigned time, which was the time which the light was blinking and there were random whispering, to dance, which would bring about the food.
Assuming you have read through the article I have given you (technically I didn't give it to you, the Sean@betabunny.com dude who wrote the article did), I will now use terms that might usually need an explanation (I'm probably going to end up describing them anyhow).
So, obviously, the little pellets of meat are the reinforcement. Because how else could you survive in the house of stairs?
Reinforcement (here I go again) is the thing that everyone is after, the thing that will reinforce the people or subjects to do what you want them to do, which in the book, is dance. And in the circumstances of the book, food was a necessity, and so, that was the reinforement.
They became so obsessed in the fact that food was all they needed, they forgot they were just in a building with a bunch of stairs, and that there was a way out, that humans were behind this, and that people were controlling them. They just had foodfoodfood on their mind, which exposed the animal-like thoughts and instincts humans have had, and still do have. We just express them in a more, as we may call it, "civilized" way.
Oh shoot. I had something really important to say, but then I forgot.
Whatever... D:
~
Okay, so I got sidetracked this morning, and I started looking up blogger templates, then I got this whole template thing and I spent half the day editing it and doing the html coding stuff for my other blog, so I am lost. This post must be so cut up.
You probably have no idea what I mean.
Anyhow,
What am I supposed to continue?
ooooh.
Okay. So.
At the ending, it shows that all of the conditioning done to the three of them (Abigail, Oliver, and Blossom), changed them into straightforward people who were coldminded and only intent on doing what they were supposed to do. They seemed inhuman, almost, uncaring, and extremely focused and alert. They did not have open space for affection, fun, or love. Love, as in just friendliness.
They were businesslike.
Here is a quote from page 156, as Mr. Sleator writes:
"[Abigail, Oliver, and Blossom's] terse, slightly crouching posture; the way their eyes slid constantly from side to side; their quick, furtive gestures--when Abigail brushed back her hair is was not a luxuriant movement as it once had been, but quick and businesslike, as though to keep the hand poised for something more important."It is evident that Abigail has changed.
And this is where I'll start writing about the characters.
Lola, for one. She's the tough one, the independent one, with clear leadership. But there's one downside which has brought all the hatred down on her. She expects competence. She has a short patience. She expects that everyone would think quickly, straightforward as her, and that if they don't, well, they're stupid.
Which is a bad thing, because Blossom goes forth on pinching her every inch of her mental and phsyical body using that little downside of her personality.
She does, however, have the ability to see what she had done. Many a times, she would apologize after yelling at the other four in exasperation, frustration, and impatience.
And she goes for what she thinks is right. She stands strong when others waver against her. She's brave, hard-core, and isn't easily moveable, in terms of changing her mind from what she thinks is right. We see many people like this in society today.
Blossom is the spoiled brat who has to get whatever she wants in her way. This is easily portayed, as her mental appearance matches with her physical. Fat and careless--except for food. Food is the prime. Everything for food, which is probably what brought out her inner evil-ness.
She is canny and quick in thinking out things that will get people on her side, so she can use them to go against the people she hates, and also to get the things she wants. She is very good at persuasion and talking, so she is good at lying, and all sorts of talking sort of stuff.
Ever since Blossom and Lola went out to go to the toilet, I knew Blossom would be the mean one. I knew she would do something bad that would hurt Lola.
Blossom is the quick, canny, businesslike people who manipulate people by making them on her side, and getting what she wants. We see many people like this in society today.
Abigail is what my mom says, the "most dangerous" of people. They don't have a definite thought or choice. They are easily swayed, and easily manipulated. They have half of an opinion, so that with one or two sentences, that person is convinced.
She is one who cares about what others think and not what she should do. She is the person who is afraid easily. A bystander, almost. She will probably do something bad just because she thinks others will dislike her if she does not. She does not go with the thoughts, but "with the flow (of others)." ("Go with the flow" quote does not fit in, I know... /:)
Peter is like the character that changes sides. Not as in from bad side to good or vice versa, but personality-wise. Maybe it's not even that he changes, but that the "inner him" is brought out. Who knows?
At first, Peter is this dull, slightly ignorant guy who's always daydreaming about the 'good old times' when he was with his friend Jasper, who always took care of him. He's extremely dependent and careful of things. When he is in a point of trouble, he always waits for someone to figure it out for him. He is always trying to be on the safe sides, with the least percentage of risk as possible; [Sleator, 5~6] "No, he couldn't go up them; he couldn't go down either. What if he should get dizzy again, and slip, or take the wrong step? No, it was safer to stay here, and wait."
Here is a quote that gives some proof: (This is the beginning, when he is randomly taken to the house of stairs and stuck there) "He wrapped his arms around himself and dropped his head onto his chest, closing his eyes, and tried his best not to move, or to think," (Sleator, 4).
This does not seem to prove much, but this is the reaction of when he is first there. He is not curious to see what is happening, but rather, he decides to shrink back and 'try not to think,' which is a rather idle move on his part.
He goes into a serious trance, that could smother his mind, for he goes into trances that he stays mesmerized in, for perhaps minutes after minutes after minutes, and it would take longer and longer every time to awaken out of it. And only Oliver can wake him. Which is creepy. But makes sense, because Peter is dreaming about the orphanage he was in that was nice, where Jasper was, where he was always taken care of and had no worries. And Oliver reminded him of Jasper.
He depends his mind on those trances to survive.
When he begins to change, it is frightening to him, as Mr. Sleator writes on page 104, "The responsibility was frightening, and heavy to bear, No one had ever depended on him; he had never been strong enough or good enough at anything for that. It was he who depended on others, on Oliver, on Jasper." When he decides to go against the machine with Lola, he is frightened that Lola suddenly says that he is not just a part of, but an essential part of the plan, that without him it would not work.
What really intrigues me is the way that Lola gets Peter out of the habit of trances. It would take a great deal--an extremely great deal--of logical and observational smarts to figure this out. Yet this is what happens when you are scientifically tested. You start doing and thinking things you never would do normally under normal pressure.
She started manipulating things studied by psychologists, subjects that are more complex than just straightforward rewards. It is really amazing that she could be so observant and smart to just know about Peter and his thoughts. She realized that she had to reward Peter in order to keep him out of his trances.
And soon, she found the key. She found the reason he was so determined to stay with her against the machine. "It was several things, all connected. It was the reward of winning over the machine, which he hated and feared; it was the reward of feeling strong and independent, of having his own identity, a feeling he had never known; it was the reward of caring about her, of being essential to her plan and not letting her down; it was even the reward of her caring about him," (Sleator, 126). She realized that although she had those same rewards for her, Peter was weaker, and thus the reward was stronger on him. She realized that he needed to be reminded of these rewards.
It was this that would become his intangible rewards for staying out of trances.
Not only this, but also her method of going about with keeping Peter away from his trances also interested me. She knew somehow that the reward would only work if it was given at just the right time. She would remind him how important he is, how beating the machine would be so triumphant, and how much she needs him. And she would only say this a certain time after he got out of his trance. And every time he got back into the trance, she would say it a longer time after, so that the span in between Peter coming out of his trance and Lola complimenting him widened every time. And in that in-between-time, she would do the silent treatment on him.
With this brilliant idea, Peter began to awaken more easily from his trances, and eventually wake up himself. After a while, he did not have those trances at all.
It was this, the disappearance of the trances, the overcoming of the trances, that strengthened Peter psychologically.
[Not finished yet]
But I'll just publish it. :D
Sean@betabunny.com. A Behavioral Approach to Video Game Design. Betabunny.com, N.D. Web. 2 Jan. 2012.
Sleator, William. House of Stairs. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1974. Print.
^first edition, by the way. :D