The task of setting up a blog was slightly annoying, but it's finished! And to write actual blogs and post comments should be more enjoyable than writing essays :)
Don't know. I think who ever made this should make individual posts for every time we have class, so that we can comment on those posts instead of one post and an entire thread of comments.
Here's my first post (comment but whatever, and i agree with Ben ^): It takes a lot of trust and loyalty to rehearse a story to tell an attacker. Trust in the sense that they would have to trust the investiagting crews to figure out all the cres and find the "legendary keystone" before Silas and his people do. It would also take loyalty because depite their imminent death, they all stick with the same story, not waivering even a little bit, showing loyalty to one another. This is proof of how important these clues are.
"Langdon was feeling anything but fortunate, and coincidence was a concept he did not entirely trust." This doesn't make any sense because a coincidence is when two or more events occur together, so how can someone not believe in them? Aren't they merely several events that occured? So does he not believe in events? I dont understand what he means here.
Fache means angry in French (give or take, with all the accents and such). Could this by why the captain's name is Fache, because he did get overly angry at Sophie? Does this mean he will turn on the investiagtion, because he was described as "a gathering storm." -Derek
First, to answer Derek's questions. When Langdon mentions, "He was feeling anything but fortunate, and coincidence was a concept he did not entirely trust." Langdon states directly after that he believes that the world is interwined by histories and events. Thus, Langdon is indirectly stating that he doesn't believe in coincidence because he thinks everything happens for a reason and that all future events are the result of past.
By calling the director of the Judicial Police (FBI in American equivalent), Dan Brown wanted a way to separate Fache from the rest of the characters. Portraying Fache, with his own name meaning "angry" in French, it gives him an overbearing sense of character and command around others. The fact that Fache did get overly angry with Sophie shows how strict and efficient Fache controls his subordinates and relates to the fact that people call him "the Bull." The way Langdon describes Fache's voice as a gathering storm could be a simple analogy to describe his character. The part of the the investigation, however, Fache might have already started it because Lt. Collet is eavesdropping on the conversation between Fache and Langdon in the gallery. Collet says it was "Le moment de verite", which in English is "the moment of truth." So I believe that Fache is investigating Langdon, the reason behind Fache's actions is currently unknown for the moment. But it is written that "Robert Langdon had proven himself one cool customer" at the end of chapter 8, which proves that Fache not only has started the investigation, but also Langdon is the prime suspect.
I love this book so far. But I'm having trouble accepting the way in which Sauniere decided to convey his message to Sophie. Every action that he took seems to be very well thought out and purposeful. I doubt that he would strip naked and arrange his body in that way simply to get Sophie's attention. I really hope it ends up being more significant that that. Also, if Sanier thought that he was in grave danger, which obviously he was, why wouldn't he cancel his plans with Langdon? He said that he would wait for Sophie in the Louvre all night if he had to, so it seems as if he didn't anticipate actually meeting with Langdon.
Also, in response to Derek in Byao, I don't think that he's saying that everything happens for a reason. Langdon doesn't really seem like a religious person and I don't think he believes in destiny or anything like that. I think that he's saying that if something happens that seems like a "coincidence", somebody tried to make it happen; like it's more of a conspiracy than luck.
It's also unsettling to think about how easily this secret that people gave their lives to protect could have been lost. If Sauniere had been shot in the heart instead of the stomach and died sooner, he wouldn't have been able to pass on his message. If Silas hadn't hinted that all of the other members of the brotherhood were dead, Saniere wouldn't have thought it necessary to pass on the message because he would think that the other brothers were still alive. I also don't understand why Saniere didn't call for help when the security people came to where he was. I'm sure they would be able to somehow override the system if he explained that he had been shot in the stomach and needed immediate medical attention. I would think he would rather live to pass on the secret instead of taking a gamble and hoping that Sophie and Langdon would be able to decipher it. -Kalie
Just a thought for Kalie's question of why Sauniere didn't cancel his plans with Langdon. In the text, it says that Sauniere was supposed to "meet at the American University reception following my [Langdon's] lecture, but he never showed up" (Brown 22). If Sauniere knew he was in grave danger before this point, then Langdon would be of help in solving his death. It is clear that Langdon respected Sauniere and was eager to meet with him. By not canceling their meeting, Sauniere kept Langdon in Paris and available to help with the case. Had he canceled the meeting, Sauniere could not be positive that Langdon would remain in Paris until summoned.
I'm not sure why the rest of my comment didn't post... but here it is:
To answer Kalie's question of why Sauniere chose to die instead of calling for help; I think Sauniere knew exactly what he was doing in killing himself. On page 4 of the text, Sauniere is confronted with death. When Silas asks whether or not Sauniere is willing to die for the secret, Sauniere tells Silas a lie. "The curator spoke his next words carefully. The lie he told was one he had rehearsed many times ... each time praying he would never have to use it" (Brown 4). This lie is intended to misguide Silas, who believes that he now knows the truth. By killing himself, Sauniere prevents the possibility of Silas ever finding out the actual secret. If, in the future, Silas discovers that he has been misled, there would be no one left for him to question. Had Sauniere survived, Silas would have another opportunity to discover the truth.
I agree with Ally on why Sauniere decided to continue with his death. If he had been saved, it would have been easy for them to track down Sauniere again, considering the possible knowledge and power of Silas and the Teacher. Also Sauniere probably would have been dead before the help came. "He was trapped and the doors could not be reopened for at least twenty minutes. By the time anyone got to him, he would be dead" (Brown 5). Even with the museum guards that could have arrived within five minutes, it was not likely that they could save Sauniere since his stomach acid was eating away at his insides. He also would not have wanted this secret to fall into the wrong hands, so Sauniere would not have told any of the guards and the secret would die with him. The only way that Sauniere could be sure that someone trustworthy would receive the message was to arrange himself that way and write the cipher.
The site does not seem to want to take my whole post so this is the other half.
I think that the way Dan Brown writes his books is very interesting and suspenseful. nearly every chapter ends with a line that makes you want to read on. The characters also seem to be connected in a way that confuses the reader as to who really is the bad guy(s) and what the ending will be like. Moving away from Langdon's line of the story, Brown alternates between chapters dealing with Silas and Opus Dei. From those chapters there is a chain of information. Silas thinks that he knows the secret and passes that on to his Teacher. Somehow, the Teacher is connected to Bishop Aringarosa who then contacts the abbe who alerts Sister Sandrine in the Church that there will be a visitor coming. This is the same Church in which Silas believes the keystone is located. It is intriguing how Brown incorporates all these elements into the plot. Once Silas realizes that the secret Sauniere told him was a lie, however, he will set out to find the truth and i'm guessing that's where Langdon and his path will cross. With all these possible "bad guys" it's hard to tell who is behind the whole thing: is it the Opus Dei or the Teacher? Or are they possibly the same thing?
I agree with Stacy and Ben that the end of each chapter entices the reader to keep going. It is also interesting when Brown talks of the past. He never comes out and says what exactly happened at the Vatican the previous year: '"And Mr. Langdon's refusal to speak publicly about his refusal to speak in last year's Vatican conclave certainly wins him points on our intrigue-o-meter"' (Brown 10). Also I wonder if Vittoria, who I'm assuming was Langdon's former lover, will appear in this novel. Brown never explains why she and Langdon have not seen each other recently. Although a huge portion of the past is left out of the novel I find it to be intriguing. As I continue to read I hope to see more about the past so I can try to puzzle together what happened. I have a question about the novel, is it just me or do you think that so far women have been put down so far. Already in the Opus Dei sect women sleep on the floor and clean up for the men. Also Sophie was yelled at by Fache. I do think that Sophie will be a strong character, overall it seems like women are degraded. Fache is angry that women were allowed to become agents since he felt that since they are not as physically strong as men they are unable to do the same job. He also feels like they are a distraction. Is Brown trying to say something about society degrading women? Or is it that it is just another quality of Fache that adds to the reasons why people dislike him?
Stacy I was thinking the same thing! Brown seems to be connecting the characters in a way that confuses me so I'm not quite sure exactly how they are related but I know they are somehow. This book also seems like those types of books where there are a bunch of different characters and although the author switches between them, you know eventually they are all going to meet up or have something to do with each other.
It surprised me that Sophie seemed like a good person. Because she was doing police work, I associated her with Fache. I, personally, do not get a good vibe from Fashe and the was he speaks and acts makes me feel like he is trying to put on an act for Langdon in order to get more information out of him than he would normally give. Fache was very angry when he got a phone call from Sophie and if I was working on an important case such as this one, I would be more open to people giving me new information or their ideas and not be mad. The fact that he got so angry made me feel like he was hiding something. This is why I thought of Sophie as a bad person. When she had Langdon listen to the voicemail, I was very confused. I couldn't tell if it was a trick or if Sophie was honestly trying to help Langdon. She also told him he was in trouble through a voicemail instead of saying it outloud in front of Fache, showing that she thought or knew that he was not a good person.
Something I was confused on what had previously happened at the Vatican. Anyone want to explain?
I want to say that I made a new post so if you want to comment on that one its probably better...
And to help with the idea of women being downgraded, both the Opus Dei and Fache are Catholic, right? Well in the Bible and even until 1920 women were considered lower than men (History chapters, anyone?). They are the gentler sex that have more morals (though they pay for what Eve did in Opus Dei) and the husbands are supposed to look after them. In the Bible women are very put down and are almost servants to their husbands. And they are also thought to be more easily pursuaded to sin, again in Eve's case. It makes sense that both Opus Dei and Fache have these similar beliefs, which explains how Fache treats Sophie and Opus Dei treats all women.
Please note that this comment was originally posted after Stacy's comment. However, due to computer problems it got deleted.
In response to Kalie's comment about the Vitruvian man and its importance in a later part of the book. The Vitruvian Man may have been simpkly a way to attract the attention of Sophie, but the importance of the Vitruvian Man my not lie in the symbol itself. Instead, the importance of this symbol is actually in the creator. The Vitruvian Man was created by none other than Leonardo Da Vinci. Coincidentaly, the book that we are reading is also called "The Da Vinci Code." In addition, Langdon mentions to Fache that Da Vinci was a supporter of the "sacred feminine" (Brown 51). This detail about Leonardo Da Vinci seems to be out of place in the initial setting, but Langdon has repeated mentioned, "the Church launched a smear campaign against the pagan gods and goddesses" (Brown 41) and "powerful female concepts with ties to Nature and Mother Earth" (Brown 40). So Leonardo Da Vinci may be a part of this mystery as it has already left one person dead, as Da Vinci was an "awkward subject for historians, especially in the Christian tradition" (Brown 50).
As Stacy has already mentioned, Brown not only entwines the lives of three unqiue individuals in the plot of the story, but he also uses many well-known people and places to add realism to the story. In the beginning of the novel, there is a section call "Fact" that gives additional information about the novel. Dan Brown specifically writes that "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate" (Brown 1). In addition, Brown writes about some of the most famous people in the world: "Sir Issac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo Da Vinci" (Brown 1). The introduction of the famous people and places in this fictional novel adds more realism to the story which attracts the natural curiousity of humans. Unlike other fictional novels that are written by authors, Dan Brown uses fact to help people walk on the same roads and in the same hallways of the characters in the book. Thus, this sense of realism in the novel adds its original sense of suspense that has made this book so popular.
seriously? my comment from last night didn't save?! good thing it was saved on Microsoft. :)
okay so here it is... again (although it makes sense to go after Ben's again).
In response to Ben's comment, I feel it is interesting that Brown chooses to intertwine completely opposing viewpoints. As Ben stated, Sauniere and Da Vinci both express an admiration for the divinity of femal figures. "A feminine symbol of protection, the circle around the naked man's body completed Da Vinci's intended message - male and femal harmony" (Brown 45). Even in death, Sauniere chooses to place himself in the position of the Vitruvian Man, which symbolizes the importance of femal figures in a male society. Yet, Brown contrasts this with the harsh society of the Opus Dei. This organization denounces women and refuses to acknowledge their rights. Their headquarters in New York City has a separate entrace for women, who are "'acoustically and visually separated' from men at all times withitn the building" (Brown 28). Brown's use of contrast between the two beliefs helps strengthen the conflict; Sauniere believed in the divine rights of women, while Silas and the Teacher are Opus Dei. By comparing a small aspect of each organization, Brown helps emphasize the disunity between the two.
So are we just supposed to be commenting on this when we post stuff?
ReplyDeleteDon't know. I think who ever made this should make individual posts for every time we have class, so that we can comment on those posts instead of one post and an entire thread of comments.
ReplyDeleteHere's my first post (comment but whatever, and i agree with Ben ^): It takes a lot of trust and loyalty to rehearse a story to tell an attacker. Trust in the sense that they would have to trust the investiagting crews to figure out all the cres and find the "legendary keystone" before Silas and his people do. It would also take loyalty because depite their imminent death, they all stick with the same story, not waivering even a little bit, showing loyalty to one another. This is proof of how important these clues are.
ReplyDelete"Langdon was feeling anything but fortunate, and coincidence was a concept he did not entirely trust." This doesn't make any sense because a coincidence is when two or more events occur together, so how can someone not believe in them? Aren't they merely several events that occured? So does he not believe in events? I dont understand what he means here.
Fache means angry in French (give or take, with all the accents and such). Could this by why the captain's name is Fache, because he did get overly angry at Sophie? Does this mean he will turn on the investiagtion, because he was described as "a gathering storm."
-Derek
First, to answer Derek's questions.
ReplyDeleteWhen Langdon mentions, "He was feeling anything but fortunate, and coincidence was a concept he did not entirely trust." Langdon states directly after that he believes that the world is interwined by histories and events. Thus, Langdon is indirectly stating that he doesn't believe in coincidence because he thinks everything happens for a reason and that all future events are the result of past.
By calling the director of the Judicial Police (FBI in American equivalent), Dan Brown wanted a way to separate Fache from the rest of the characters. Portraying Fache, with his own name meaning "angry" in French, it gives him an overbearing sense of character and command around others. The fact that Fache did get overly angry with Sophie shows how strict and efficient Fache controls his subordinates and relates to the fact that people call him "the Bull." The way Langdon describes Fache's voice as a gathering storm could be a simple analogy to describe his character. The part of the the investigation, however, Fache might have already started it because Lt. Collet is eavesdropping on the conversation between Fache and Langdon in the gallery. Collet says it was "Le moment de verite", which in English is "the moment of truth." So I believe that Fache is investigating Langdon, the reason behind Fache's actions is currently unknown for the moment. But it is written that "Robert Langdon had proven himself one cool customer" at the end of chapter 8, which proves that Fache not only has started the investigation, but also Langdon is the prime suspect.
I love this book so far. But I'm having trouble accepting the way in which Sauniere decided to convey his message to Sophie. Every action that he took seems to be very well thought out and purposeful. I doubt that he would strip naked and arrange his body in that way simply to get Sophie's attention. I really hope it ends up being more significant that that. Also, if Sanier thought that he was in grave danger, which obviously he was, why wouldn't he cancel his plans with Langdon? He said that he would wait for Sophie in the Louvre all night if he had to, so it seems as if he didn't anticipate actually meeting with Langdon.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in response to Derek in Byao, I don't think that he's saying that everything happens for a reason. Langdon doesn't really seem like a religious person and I don't think he believes in destiny or anything like that. I think that he's saying that if something happens that seems like a "coincidence", somebody tried to make it happen; like it's more of a conspiracy than luck.
It's also unsettling to think about how easily this secret that people gave their lives to protect could have been lost. If Sauniere had been shot in the heart instead of the stomach and died sooner, he wouldn't have been able to pass on his message. If Silas hadn't hinted that all of the other members of the brotherhood were dead, Saniere wouldn't have thought it necessary to pass on the message because he would think that the other brothers were still alive. I also don't understand why Saniere didn't call for help when the security people came to where he was. I'm sure they would be able to somehow override the system if he explained that he had been shot in the stomach and needed immediate medical attention. I would think he would rather live to pass on the secret instead of taking a gamble and hoping that Sophie and Langdon would be able to decipher it.
-Kalie
Okay. That is supposed to say Derek AND Byao. Not Derek in Byao...
ReplyDeleteJust a thought for Kalie's question of why Sauniere didn't cancel his plans with Langdon. In the text, it says that Sauniere was supposed to "meet at the American University reception following my [Langdon's] lecture, but he never showed up" (Brown 22). If Sauniere knew he was in grave danger before this point, then Langdon would be of help in solving his death. It is clear that Langdon respected Sauniere and was eager to meet with him. By not canceling their meeting, Sauniere kept Langdon in Paris and available to help with the case. Had he canceled the meeting, Sauniere could not be positive that Langdon would remain in Paris until summoned.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why the rest of my comment didn't post... but here it is:
ReplyDeleteTo answer Kalie's question of why Sauniere chose to die instead of calling for help; I think Sauniere knew exactly what he was doing in killing himself. On page 4 of the text, Sauniere is confronted with death. When Silas asks whether or not Sauniere is willing to die for the secret, Sauniere tells Silas a lie. "The curator spoke his next words carefully. The lie he told was one he had rehearsed many times ... each time praying he would never have to use it" (Brown 4). This lie is intended to misguide Silas, who believes that he now knows the truth. By killing himself, Sauniere prevents the possibility of Silas ever finding out the actual secret. If, in the future, Silas discovers that he has been misled, there would be no one left for him to question. Had Sauniere survived, Silas would have another opportunity to discover the truth.
I agree with Ally on why Sauniere decided to continue with his death. If he had been saved, it would have been easy for them to track down Sauniere again, considering the possible knowledge and power of Silas and the Teacher. Also Sauniere probably would have been dead before the help came. "He was trapped and the doors could not be reopened for at least twenty minutes. By the time anyone got to him, he would be dead" (Brown 5). Even with the museum guards that could have arrived within five minutes, it was not likely that they could save Sauniere since his stomach acid was eating away at his insides. He also would not have wanted this secret to fall into the wrong hands, so Sauniere would not have told any of the guards and the secret would die with him. The only way that Sauniere could be sure that someone trustworthy would receive the message was to arrange himself that way and write the cipher.
ReplyDeleteThe site does not seem to want to take my whole post so this is the other half.
ReplyDeleteI think that the way Dan Brown writes his books is very interesting and suspenseful. nearly every chapter ends with a line that makes you want to read on. The characters also seem to be connected in a way that confuses the reader as to who really is the bad guy(s) and what the ending will be like. Moving away from Langdon's line of the story, Brown alternates between chapters dealing with Silas and Opus Dei. From those chapters there is a chain of information. Silas thinks that he knows the secret and passes that on to his Teacher. Somehow, the Teacher is connected to Bishop Aringarosa who then contacts the abbe who alerts Sister Sandrine in the Church that there will be a visitor coming. This is the same Church in which Silas believes the keystone is located. It is intriguing how Brown incorporates all these elements into the plot. Once Silas realizes that the secret Sauniere told him was a lie, however, he will set out to find the truth and i'm guessing that's where Langdon and his path will cross. With all these possible "bad guys" it's hard to tell who is behind the whole thing: is it the Opus Dei or the Teacher? Or are they possibly the same thing?
I agree with Stacy and Ben that the end of each chapter entices the reader to keep going. It is also interesting when Brown talks of the past. He never comes out and says what exactly happened at the Vatican the previous year: '"And Mr. Langdon's refusal to speak publicly about his refusal to speak in last year's Vatican conclave certainly wins him points on our intrigue-o-meter"' (Brown 10). Also I wonder if Vittoria, who I'm assuming was Langdon's former lover, will appear in this novel. Brown never explains why she and Langdon have not seen each other recently. Although a huge portion of the past is left out of the novel I find it to be intriguing. As I continue to read I hope to see more about the past so I can try to puzzle together what happened.
ReplyDeleteI have a question about the novel, is it just me or do you think that so far women have been put down so far. Already in the Opus Dei sect women sleep on the floor and clean up for the men. Also Sophie was yelled at by Fache. I do think that Sophie will be a strong character, overall it seems like women are degraded. Fache is angry that women were allowed to become agents since he felt that since they are not as physically strong as men they are unable to do the same job. He also feels like they are a distraction. Is Brown trying to say something about society degrading women? Or is it that it is just another quality of Fache that adds to the reasons why people dislike him?
Stacy I was thinking the same thing! Brown seems to be connecting the characters in a way that confuses me so I'm not quite sure exactly how they are related but I know they are somehow. This book also seems like those types of books where there are a bunch of different characters and although the author switches between them, you know eventually they are all going to meet up or have something to do with each other.
ReplyDeleteIt surprised me that Sophie seemed like a good person. Because she was doing police work, I associated her with Fache. I, personally, do not get a good vibe from Fashe and the was he speaks and acts makes me feel like he is trying to put on an act for Langdon in order to get more information out of him than he would normally give. Fache was very angry when he got a phone call from Sophie and if I was working on an important case such as this one, I would be more open to people giving me new information or their ideas and not be mad. The fact that he got so angry made me feel like he was hiding something. This is why I thought of Sophie as a bad person. When she had Langdon listen to the voicemail, I was very confused. I couldn't tell if it was a trick or if Sophie was honestly trying to help Langdon. She also told him he was in trouble through a voicemail instead of saying it outloud in front of Fache, showing that she thought or knew that he was not a good person.
Something I was confused on what had previously happened at the Vatican. Anyone want to explain?
I want to say that I made a new post so if you want to comment on that one its probably better...
ReplyDeleteAnd to help with the idea of women being downgraded, both the Opus Dei and Fache are Catholic, right? Well in the Bible and even until 1920 women were considered lower than men (History chapters, anyone?). They are the gentler sex that have more morals (though they pay for what Eve did in Opus Dei) and the husbands are supposed to look after them. In the Bible women are very put down and are almost servants to their husbands. And they are also thought to be more easily pursuaded to sin, again in Eve's case. It makes sense that both Opus Dei and Fache have these similar beliefs, which explains how Fache treats Sophie and Opus Dei treats all women.
Please note that this comment was originally posted after Stacy's comment. However, due to computer problems it got deleted.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kalie's comment about the Vitruvian man and its importance in a later part of the book. The Vitruvian Man may have been simpkly a way to attract the attention of Sophie, but the importance of the Vitruvian Man my not lie in the symbol itself. Instead, the importance of this symbol is actually in the creator. The Vitruvian Man was created by none other than Leonardo Da Vinci. Coincidentaly, the book that we are reading is also called "The Da Vinci Code." In addition, Langdon mentions to Fache that Da Vinci was a supporter of the "sacred feminine" (Brown 51). This detail about Leonardo Da Vinci seems to be out of place in the initial setting, but Langdon has repeated mentioned, "the Church launched a smear campaign against the pagan gods and goddesses" (Brown 41) and "powerful female concepts with ties to Nature and Mother Earth" (Brown 40). So Leonardo Da Vinci may be a part of this mystery as it has already left one person dead, as Da Vinci was an "awkward subject for historians, especially in the Christian tradition" (Brown 50).
As Stacy has already mentioned, Brown not only entwines the lives of three unqiue individuals in the plot of the story, but he also uses many well-known people and places to add realism to the story. In the beginning of the novel, there is a section call "Fact" that gives additional information about the novel. Dan Brown specifically writes that "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate" (Brown 1). In addition, Brown writes about some of the most famous people in the world: "Sir Issac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo Da Vinci" (Brown 1). The introduction of the famous people and places in this fictional novel adds more realism to the story which attracts the natural curiousity of humans. Unlike other fictional novels that are written by authors, Dan Brown uses fact to help people walk on the same roads and in the same hallways of the characters in the book. Thus, this sense of realism in the novel adds its original sense of suspense that has made this book so popular.
seriously? my comment from last night didn't save?! good thing it was saved on Microsoft. :)
ReplyDeleteokay so here it is... again (although it makes sense to go after Ben's again).
In response to Ben's comment, I feel it is interesting that Brown chooses to intertwine completely opposing viewpoints. As Ben stated, Sauniere and Da Vinci both express an admiration for the divinity of femal figures. "A feminine symbol of protection, the circle around the naked man's body completed Da Vinci's intended message - male and femal harmony" (Brown 45). Even in death, Sauniere chooses to place himself in the position of the Vitruvian Man, which symbolizes the importance of femal figures in a male society. Yet, Brown contrasts this with the harsh society of the Opus Dei. This organization denounces women and refuses to acknowledge their rights. Their headquarters in New York City has a separate entrace for women, who are "'acoustically and visually separated' from men at all times withitn the building" (Brown 28). Brown's use of contrast between the two beliefs helps strengthen the conflict; Sauniere believed in the divine rights of women, while Silas and the Teacher are Opus Dei. By comparing a small aspect of each organization, Brown helps emphasize the disunity between the two.