It's been a long and interesting road but the end of the novel has finally arrived. Part six is even more dramatic than Part 5. Part 6, which is relatively the end of the bodied part of the book is where we get some surprises. Some of the surprises we could have saw comming or actually anticipated to happen while others we were shocked by. I know that, I for one was shocked by some of the events that took place in Part Six. Enough stalling, I think it is time to fill you in on the overview of the events that I found important or rather significant. In part six there were key events such as Svidsy's attempted rape of Dunya, Svidsy's last act of kindness and his suicide,  Raskolnikov's meeting with his mother and sister before his confession, and Raskolnikov's confession to llya.
      Svidsy after Raskolnikov met him at the bar and stopped persuing him, goes to the Dunya's house and tells her not to say a word otherwise he will tell the police of Raskolnikov's secret which he talked about in the letter he sent her. He tells Dunya that he can help Raskolnikov is she marries him but at this news Dunya is shocked and tries to run away. Dunya is stopped because the door is locked and at that moment Svidsy tries to force himself uppon her and attempts to rape her. She gets her revolver and shoots at him twice and missed possibly due to the fact that she could not bring herslef to kiling another human  being. With the Shots directed towards him Svidsy realizes that Dunya can never love him and he leaves. After Svidsy leaves Dunya the days later he like Raskolnikov before is in a state of shock and sorrow. He visits Sonya and gives her money in the form of a three-thousand dollar bond and assures her that she and her family would be taken care of. What is very strange is that he also tells Sonya to use some money to visit Raskolnikov in Siberia. After he gives Sonya money he visits his Finace's family and gives them money also. He tells everyone that he is moving to America. Afterwards he goes to a hotel and has some dreams the day before he goes out and kills himself. It is important to note that Svidsy's character is seen in a new light. We see two significant acts of generosity by a man depicted in the novel as evil. His actions sort of mirror Raskolnikov's in that he realizes a wrong that he has done or caused and uses money as an attonement for it. Him killing himself comes as a shock though mostly because of his sneakyness and sense of pride. His death shows the insecurities of a deaply wounded man.
    Before raskolnikov meets with Sonya he meets his mother and sister. he first meets his mother who is proud of him and regards him as higly intellectual and succesful because of his essay though she did not understand it. Raskolnikov tells her though that he can not stay and has to leave which pains her. Also Raskolnikov meets with his sister who waits for him at his apartment. Dunya urges him to confess which he takes to heart. He tells her that he thoght about commiting suicide but he could not go through with it. She is shocked by his ubermesch remarks on the killing of Alyona and how he would not have been ashamed if he had done good by killing her. With that they both leave the apartmet and go separate ways.
    Raskolnikov's confessing is key in the novel because it is seen as the climax of the novel. Its interesting because the confession comes at the very end of the novel almost the very last sentences. Raskolnikov at several times thought about confessing out loud but again because of his pride and self-weakness does not. he goes into the police station with the intent to confess however be turns around but upon seeing Sonya goes back in and confesses to llya who is shocked becuase she apologizes just before for accusing him. Raskolnikovs confession is significant because it is marked by a filler filled conversation with llya which adds suspense for the reader.
      

    I would have to say that I enjoyed the novel very well. I didn’t like it early on but as it progressed I began to fall in love with it. I loved the whole plot of the novel and the ideas it addressed and the questions that it served to ask. I think that Raskolnikov’s ideals thoroughly embodied those of many criminals and psychopaths in our society simply because of the complexity of his character and the inner struggles which he had to go through. What I did not like about the novel were the fillers that were apparent through-out the novel. To me the fillers made it seem that the author tried to augment the novel from its original length. This augmentation is different from those scenes where he described a certain scene or event in great detail. The difference is that with those special scenes the descriptions build an idea or foreshadow events that would take place later in the novel. I found the mental battle between Porfiry and Raskolnikov to be very interesting and a good addition to the novel. The addition is that classic motif of the cat and mouse chase between a criminal and the cop who would stop at nothing to get his man. The one thing that shocked me and left me confused was the fact that Svidsy killed himself. I did not see that coming at all. I know that he was left very dejected after he realized that Dunya would never love him and was some what delirious after his dream , but to me those didn’t seem like reasons to kill yourself but that is just me. I also found the semi-love story between Raskolnikov and Sonya to be touching. It is obvious that Raskolnikov likes Sonya, but because of his pride he keeps pushing her away and sooner or later realizes that he loves her. On an end note I will say that though the novel did not physically end in death it is still realistic and hold’s to my acquired belief of a novel ending in death, because metaphorically Raskolnikov’s old self died and his new self was reborn in his place as Lazarus was reborn in the bible.

      

The moment if truth has arrived!!!!

 After reading the last chapters of part five and chapters one to three of part six, I must say that things have finally heated up. This section of reading is filled with so much emotion that it could without a doubt in my mind, be an Oscar winner. In the section of reading a couple of significant things happen. The thing that we have all been waiting for has finally happened in a way. We finally get a confession from Raskolnikov of his actions. That is the icing on the cake, but rest assured that the other events are equally as important. Besides Raskolnikov's confession there is the death of Katerina, the talk between Raskolnikov and Razumikhin to determine his sanity, the psychological rematch between Porfiry and Raskolnikov, and Raskolnikov's meeting with Svidsy.
     Wow it has finally happened and it only took two-hundred or so pages. Raskolnikov has finally confessed and to Sonya of all people. I know that he feels that he and her are in the same boat but I think that it’s more than that. I think that the reason why Raskolnikov has taken so much interest in her is because he loves her. What’s interesting about his confession is that it is the turning point in Raskolnikov's character. Here we see that his human side is overpowering his deranged or psychopathic side. Raskolnikov admits to Sonya his reasons for killing Alyona and Lizevetta and how they were more acts of selfishness rooted in his misguided theory than anything. Sonya understands what Raskolnikov has gone through and promises to care for him but first he must come back to God by confessing his sins out loud.
    Katerina's death in the novel is a sad turn of events as it is on the heels of her husband’s death. It’s sad because Katerina never got what she wanted in life which was to be respected for he so called nobility. She always saw herself as being of a higher standard than those around her though she was equally if not more insolvent. Nevertheless she died and thus the pains of the Marmeladovs continue. Razumikhin comes back to Raskolnikov to measure his sanity. In the process he deems that Raskolnikov is very much sane. Though he has come to this rationalization he is angered by Raskolnikov's selfishness when it comes to the pain his family feels because of him. Razumhikin and Raskolnikov talk more in which Razumikhim tells Raskolnikov about the letter that Dunya received and Porfiry's belief that the painter Nikolai was the murderer.
     Raskolnikov's psychological rematch is very interesting. This time around it seems that Porfiry had trained a bit more and was ready to dish out some mind destroyers. Porfiry being a very clever man and a studied psychologist apologizes and even goes to the point of telling Raskolnikov that he suspects him of the murders but cannot detain him due to lack of proof. Raskolnikov denies that he committed the murders but Porfiry knows well that he did and he also knows that Raskolnikov is being destroyed by his guilt and that sooner or later he will confess because of it. Porfiry tells Raskolnikov that it would be in his best interest to confess of the crimes before evidence is shown against him as his punishment would be a bit more lenient. Porfiry's approach to dealing with the situation and Raskolnikov in this section of reading is very interesting. Porfiry outright makes his suspicions known to Raskolnikov and uses a bit of reverse psychology to extract a confession from Raskolnikov though he is still holding strong. Like their last encounter showed I think that Porfiry is getting to Raskolnikov and it is only a matter of time before he cracks which may also be due to what Sonya told him to do.
         Ah good ole Svidsy. It seems that we finally find out what he is to do with the information that he got from eavesdropping. In this section of reading we find out that Raskolnikov finds and confronts Svidsy. Raskolnikov and Svidsy go at it and Raskolnikov ends up threading to kill Svidsy if he were to use "the information" as blackmail to get to Dunya. Raskolnikov is disgusted with Svidsy and wants to have no more to do with him but has his mind changed quickly by the mere mention of Dunya. In this scene we see how evil Svidsy is and how low he would sink to get what he wants.

   To recapitulate on the events that have occurred in the novel Crime and Punishment I would note that at the moment The marriage between Dunechka and Luzhin has been call off for good, Raskolnikov decides to separate from his family now that they are in the hands of Razumikhin, Razumikhin realizes that Raskolnikov is the murderer, Raskolnikov speaks with Sonya and asks her to leave with him and then later telling her Lizaveta's killer, Svidrigaylov lurks in the shadows and listens to Raskolnikov and Sonya's conversation, and Raskolnikov is driven to the brink of almost confessing his crime, but due to a  fortunate occurrence is saved.
    The events of part 5 chapters 1-3 are very important. The events serve as a turning point in the novel. The Part begins with Luzhin in his room with a new character Lebezyatnikov sobering over the events that had occurred before at the dinner. He is very sad and knows that his marriage with Dunechka could now just be dust in the air. Luzhin comes to this realization but still has hopes in winning Dunechka back. The only problem is that his rationalization of his ruined relationship with Dunechka is rooted more in material failures than anything. He is quoted as saying" Another mistake I made was in not giving them any money" (Dostoevsky, 305). The quote shows him being oblivious to the truth. He is in denial about the events and blames the ill will on Raskolnikov and money; instead he should look inwards at himself and the way in which he acted at the dinner. We truly get to see how evil Luzhin is in these three chapters. Luzhin and Lebezyatnikov are invited to Katerina's dinner in which she spends over half the money Raskolnikov gave her on. At the dinner He devises a plan. He first invites Sonya into his room and through a seemingly benevolent act gives her ten roubles. Later on we know the true motives of his deeds. He bursts in and accuses Sonya of stealing one-hundred roubles from him. Katerina is shocked by his claims and knows that her step daughter Sonya would never do such an act and to prove it she checks Sonya's pockets. In doing so she is equally as perplexed when she sees the one-hundred roubles fall from Sonya's pocket. Luzhin as evil as he is filled with joy that his plans are going well, though he is foiled when Lebezyatnikov comes to the "rescue" and says that he saw Luzhin put the one-hundred roubles in Sonya's pocket. Luzhin is embarrassed to know that his attempt to make Raskolnikov look bad fails and thus leaves. Another thing that happens in the Part is that we see Katerina's sense on pride. We see that in the way she splurges on the memorial dinner though the family could be plunged even more into poverty. Her pride leads her to argue intensely with the landlady which ends ultimately with the Marmeladovs eviction.

Sooo like I'm a Philosopher!!

   What if Philosophy? Not to be cynical or anything but i honestly think That A Philosopher is someone who realized that he loved college and didnt feel like leaving, therefore he/she tries to tell everyone else their opinions. Yawn! If you are like me and you are averse to philosophers then you would notte that Friedrich is no different. Like other Philosophers Friedrich pitches us (the masses) his idea of what he feels about the world as it pertains to politics, religion, and other things, which he hopes that we are gullible enough to believe. I dont know where all this animosity is comming from, but I guess I should be a little nicer towards Philosophers. Most of them seem to be artless when it comes to what they believe or what they want to be accomplished for the bulk of society. What's ironic though is that wether intentional or not the ideals of many philosophers are often used negatively or to justify evil even if the original arguments behind the philosophy were good. Friedrich and Marx are two well known examples of this. Friedrich and his ideas of "The death of god" which deals with we as human being eing murderers when when metaphorically kill god when we give up our fatih. What this does is that it releases two ideals. One which states that because of the faith in god being lost human beings can now pay muuch more attetion to the problems of te world at hand and try to make things better for individuals. The other is less benevolent which takes the idea that with no god there are no "universal laws of morality", therefore people can act however they want to each other. With Marx his ideas on communism are often challenged by corupt rulers and harsh dictators. In theory communism is supposed to be the perfect economic system because it serves to provide for the basic needs of all, however this doesn't happen because dictators of many communist countries provide for the basic need but the qualities are lacking. Enough about the ambiguity of Philosophers, and lets talk more about friedrich nad his ideals.
       The "Death of god" which Friedrich often talks about brings up the idea of a lack in the universal laws of morality. This belief in a lack of morality directly correlates to the beliefs of nihilism.This type of nihilism is actuallly moral nihilism which states that morality again does not exist in life and that established moral values and concieved abstractly. The other type of nehilism according to the article is existential nihilism which states life is without meaning purpose or value. From these two different forms of nihilism we can see that the over all, nhilism is a philosophical doctrine which suggests the negation of one or more aspects of life. From the wikepedia article on Friedrich's early life I would assume that he possibly composed this philosophical doctrine later in his life after he let the university of Bonn which is when he lost his faith in the Christian religion. Nihilism it self has its good and bad implications I would say that I generally agree with the idea that it is described  "as a condition of tension, as a disproportion between what we want to value (or need) and how the world appears to operate." As a marxism and some what pragmatist I like to be told the truth and often see the world for what it really is. I like to be hopefull that things will end up right which is what I want but I know that this cannot be the case.

So Am I crazy?

  Today, due to the fact that we as a class have been reading Crime and Punishment and thinking about the nature of crimes, I was asked to take a Psychopath test. Initially I didnt know what to expect. A psycopath test? For me? Why ? Have I shown in any way that I were volatile? I went ahead anyways and took the test. The questions on the test were strang yet when I think about it they made a lot of sense.There were questions which asked ; Are they unrealistic about their long term aims? when I saw this question, it hit me. Was I unrealistic about my long term aims? I thought for a while then I realized that I partialy had this quality. Yea I'm aiming high when it comes to my goals but I believe that any thing is possible if the right amount of work is put into it. Am I crazy for that? I would be then according to the test. Ultimately my test results were in and it said that I did not have strong psycopathic tendencies though it did not rule out the possibility of me becoming a mass murderer. It said that I would often find things like talking with normal people boring and would not want anything from them unless it benefitted me at all. After taking the test I felt a little unsettled. When I thought about the distinctions between psycopaths  and normal people I was shocked. For me personally that line was very close. On the test I often had to answer partially to the questions due to the fact that I didn't have  all of those qualities of a psychopath but I did have some of them. For instance the question Do they enjoy taking riskes and acting on reckless impulses? I had to answer partially to this question because I know for a fact that I like to take risks but at the same time I take calculated risks and often decide wether the risk I took would be beneficial and the losses would be immense. There were also questions that when I looked at them I knew that they unequivically described a pyschopath. The question asked, have they no apparent sense of remorse, shame, or guilt? A question like this would really relate to a psychopath. From my experience of watching Forensic Files, other True TV programs, and GangLand, I have seen how some of the criminals react to things such as murder and rape. When I watch those people it seems to me that they are not penitent about what then did and sometimes they are so arrogant as to say that if they had a chance they would do it again.
         On the topic of the Broadcasting This American Life I thought it was Interesting. The Broadcast itself reminded me of another radio show I used to watch during the summer called The Bert Show. I dont know if it's my hearing but I could go so far as to say that the main announcers from both broadcasts sound the same. The This American Life Broadcast like The Bert Show was very funny I often had a chuckle. I guess thier humor appeals to my sense of humor. Also what I noted was that with both shows they talk about random topics that you thinking like the psycopath test. All in All the broadcast was great and I liked it. :)

"The Road" to Nowhere

Its about that time again where I reach the end of a novel. I must say that The Road, like no other book in quite a while, actually touched me. The novel was not like any other that I have read in quite a while because it raise profoundly philosophical questions in a compelling and contemporary way and offered themes and ideas that would be worthy of debate. A few of these themes being the issue of morality and the symbolism behind fire.
         The issue of morality gets raised a lot in The Road to the point where one could say that it is a major theme. The novel sets to question preconceived notions of morality and in its own way questions the morality of humans. One of the very first examples can be found on pages 49-50. Basically The Man and The Boy happen upon another survivor on the road. The problem lies in the fact that the traveler has been severely burned, possibly by lightning strike and is sooner or later going to die. The Man realizes this inevitability and opts not to help the traveler at all, however the Boy being the kid that he is questions his fathers decision and wants to honestly help the man. There lies the question, what would you do in that situation? As an adult, because your experiences, you tend to grow and see the world for what it really is. Any adult would have known that the man was far beyond any help that the world in which they lived could give, but when you are a child it is different. It may be due to the fact that the world, or society as a whole feeds its general notions of what is and what is not moral, but fails to point out that morality is based on situation. Because of this sort of Hypnopedic teaching of what is moral, children are often left with misconceived views of reality and the truth it entails.

Get out of my head !!!!!

Sitting at home watching Forensic Files, I always wonder why criminals are so stupid. I ponder on the topic of whether they are sane or the extent to which they can be considered insane. It would be interesting to know what goes on in the minds of criminals physically that make them act the way that they do. Fortunately for me I have found that information.  It really is interesting because every society has its fair share of criminals, and every society tries to create ways to isolate or remove those criminals from the picture. Recently, the prospect of going back in time and killing those people that caused the death of many innocent people has been looked upon. Many scientist, historians, politicians...etc has debated on the issue of whether it is ethical to kill these people when they are young or before they commit the atrocities towards humanity. In the same way three different pieces of prose have tackled the idea of the criminal mind or the ethics of pre-crime prevention. Let's analyze shall we.
         Personally I am a person that likes to give people the benefit of the doubt. I am a true believer in the statement "Innocent until proven guilty". With that being said i feel that it is completely wrong to incarcerate someone on the basis of what crime they may or are likely to commit in some future time. This is where two of the three pieces of prose are similar. The MSNBC article dealing with criminal brain scans, and the short story “The Minority Report" both touch on the topic of prior knowledge of potential criminals, and prevention based on that knowledge. In the short story the people of the society use mutants which have the ability to look two weeks into the future and determine whether a person is going to commit a crime or not. Afterwards the people of the society throw that person in labor camp even though they technically are innocent. The article is very similar; however it is less science fiction. The article covers the idea that criminals or psychopaths often have differences in the brains frontal lobe activity. The article talks about taking steps early to stop children who are foreseen to become criminals. Both the article and the short story depict acts that would be considered a breech of an individuals rights as stated by the constitution. In both cases when you start to throw people under the bus because of "beliefs" then it shows that you don’t have faith in the justice system. With no form of justice or centralized law then a society might as well e considered anarchy. On the idea of how criminals differ from non-criminals or normal people, I think that we are actually very much the same with little exceptions. The only difference with criminals is that they act on their impulses and don’t think rationally when making key decisions. Also they tend to try to rationalize their actions which the song lyrics note with "And he can see no reasons Cos there are no reasons ". Another example of this of this deliberate rationalization is evident in Crime and Punishment. Raskolnikov, before he commits the murder, looks for signs that would justify his murder of the pawn broker. That search for justification is what makes Raskolnikov and other criminals insane. That is it, that’s the different between psychopaths and normal people. It is very important to look within yourselves and see if you tend to do wrong then try to justify your actions. If you have the Phyco-quality then check yourself because you might be insane. :)

The Life and Times of FD burger

       It seems that Dostoyevsky grew up poor in Russia. According to the wiki article he often wrote about phycology of humans in the troubled Russia. Dostoyevsky grew up in Moscow but later in his life moved to St. Petersburgs. The artical States that D's life and community influenced his writing. This influence can be seen through some of the senseless acts of compassion that Raskolnikov carries out throughout the novel including leaving the money for the Marmeladovs. The article also states that Doestoyevsky's father was a drunk and he had a religious conversion while in prison. I would say that these two things impacted his perception of alcohol. That perception in itself bleeds through the novel with Raskolonikovs beliefs on alcohol. Another thing to point out would be the fact that Doestoyevsky served in the Siberian regiment. His serving in the regiment should have acquired him some skills in the art of killing. So as a result it is easy to know where Raskolonikov's abilities to kill so easily with an axe come from from.
      Now for the question of its its a crime if you are doing it for the right reasons? No it is not a crime. Why do I say that? well to me, If someone is trying to for instance attack you and your girlfriend then that would be a justifiable reason to kill them. If the person has the gonads to try to kill you or your girlfriend then he doesnt care about the crime he is commiting so why should you. In the case of the novel I think that Alyonda should also be considered a criminal. Though she did not kill anyone she ripped off the poor. She easily took advantage of people that no not have any money who have to sell their prized possesions just to make ends meet. It doesnt matter how hard the times were she knew exactly what she was doing. so if we were to stay with the same idea then is Raskolnikov is a criminal then she is too.

We are all going to die!!!!!!

    Before I discuss the very cognizant inevitability, of the mass extinction of the human race, it would be nice to pick out some interesting quotes from The Road, and discuss them. Interesting enough, one very heart felt quote is uttered by the man, he goes on to say " Can you do it? When the time comes?....Could you crush that beloved skull with a rock?" During this quote the man and the boy fled from the house where the people were being held as rations for the cannibals. This quote is iinteresting because, here the father deliberates on whether he can be able to kill his son, in the face of extreme danger. In spite of his beliefs prior to the event, he knows that he in fact cannot hold his son dead in his arms, and decides upon waiting out the situation and hoping that the cannibals leave. The quote is filled with so much anxiety and emotion that it screams indecision. In a way the quote alludes to the fact that in life, we are met with situations where we have to make tough decisions, and the confusion that these situations entail reflect the apocalyptic nature of the world in which we live. Another quote that is worthy of noting would have to be the one in which the boy says "They're going to kill those people, aren't they?....They're going to eat them, aren't they?....And we couldn't help them because then they'd eat us too.....An that's why we couldn't help them." With this quote, we can kind of infer that, the boys belief in his father's sense of morality is being challenged. It seems that this is a recurring theme. The dad makes a decision though immoral, in the interest of survival, and the son questions it. It's almost as if the boy is learning bit by bit the reality of the world that they live in. A reader responding to this quote would absolutely understand what the boy is feeling, being young and questioning your parents why an alternative to the decision that they made couldn't have been chosen. For instance, when I was six, my father and I were walking and we saw a hungry dog. I saw the sorrow in the dogs eyes and wanted to help it, but ultimately my father decided against it. I asked my father why we couldn't help that dog, and to this day I am still awaiting the answer.
         Now for our feature presentation. We all know that we are going to die. We also know that if not sooner, someday the human race will come to an end. The question then that is imposed is How are we going to die? Well, a number of sources have their opinion, including Yeats and T.S. Eliot. Yeat's interpretation of the world ending is a bit more biblical and scientific. Its more of a compilation of the possible ways in which the world could end, ranging from the highly probable to the impossible. This is contrary to Eliots beliefs which is mostly rooted in imagination. Eliot believes that there will be an Apocalypse of the mind of men. Eliot writes that instead of the mass destruction, or bang that is often believed to be the way that the world  ends it would end with a whimper. In a way Eliot's beliefs compare with McCarthy's take because after the destruction of the world the minds and inner feeling of the people went through an Apocalypse. Many of them were forced to make decisions that were immoral just to survive such as consuming the flesh of other humans. though Eliot's take have few similarities to McCarthy's Yeats takes the cake. Yeats and McCarthy's take are so similar that for not the differences in who conceived them one could say that they were the same. It could be argued that McCarthy was influenced by the many situations on Yeat's list. What ever it may be both authors believe that the world could end with raging flames possibly due to the ignorance of men.

The " Very Long" Road

Though I have not read deep enough into the novel's plot, I can tell that this novel is going to be great. The interesting part is that it had that post-apocalyptic feel to it. How is that? Well for one most of the environment is described as desolate and spacious. For one or more reasons the protagonists have been traveling long and yet they have not encountered anyone which hints at the mass destruction of the human race. Then there is the description of ash mixed with snow and the fact that almost all animal life and vegetation was burned so one could infer that there was some kind of big catastrophe that destroyed the world as we know it. novels of movies that i could think about that share the same genre and characteristics would have to be I am  legend, The book of Eli, and Dawn of The Dead. All of the movies Listed future some type of catastrophe that occurred that threatened the survival of the human race. In I am legend its a disease, in The book of Eli its possibly some nuclear bomb, and in Dawn of the dead it's zombie.
            The Post-Apocalyptic genre is very similar to Dystopian theme. They both feature the destruction of the human race in some way. With The dystopian theme, the free will and thinking of humans are destroyed, therefore their soul cannot be intact in, which case their body functions as an empty shell. Also both seem to be placed in the future and often times when technology has advanced and the dangers of those advancements are noticed. Where the two novels differ though is that, Post-apocalyptic novels tend to draw on the ingenuity and the will of humans to survive in a scarce or resources less world, whereas Dystopian novels tend to criticize the faults of society and conformity through the use of future Utopian societies. A good film that shares both of these aspects would be Ultraviolet. The movie sets in a future that is very Utopian possibly after some apocalyptic disaster and features a hero that discovers the faults of the society and tries to correct them. i would say that Dysptopians are much better at addressing social and political issues during our time while, Post-apocalyptics are better at showing the capabilities of individuals.
            I would say that McCarthy's style is very unique and different from the norm. It is however confusing because he does not use quotations and there are an awful lot of fragments. To guess i would say that the fragments and the lack of quotations describe the world in which the two protagonists live. they both represent the pain of the devastation that occurred before and the wanting not to "speak" or remember it. I would say that I love his style because he reiterates and accentuates his point and the environment the people are in.