After reading Macbeth in school, we were assigned to get together in groups of 3 and write our own mini-plays exploring a character. Thank goodness we could choose groups (friend 1, friend 2) because this project involved a) writing an analysis of the character b) writing a script (at least 75 lines in iambic pentameter, ours was about 150), and c) making a movie of your script. All in less than 2 weeks. Teachers are insane sometimes often.
Thankfully, my group got Macduff. For those who haven’t read the Scottish Play, Macduff is a Scottish lord who (rightly) suspects Macbeth of regicide and ends up killing him. So he’s a cool character. With a lot of potential.
Now the assignment told us to “explore” his character. That’s what my English teacher calls “nerdy teacher language.” A little bit more probing revealed that as long as we could back up anything we said about Macduff’s character with interpreted evidence of the text, we could do anything. So we could interpret the evidence any way we liked as long as long as we made a strong argument. Already allows us a lot of freedom. So we start brainstorming.
Has anyone ever seen “All About Eve”? Well our eventual idea has a lot of similarities to the cyclical quality of that brilliant movie. I noticed this after we had the idea and got really excited about it and my friends asked me what on earth I was talking about.
Anyway. Our basic idea was that Macduff would follow the same path as Macbeth. Think about it. It does fit. Or it could.
Macbeth becomes a hero in battle and receives the titles and lands of Cawdor, a traitor to Duncan, King of Scotland. Macbeth hears a prophecy that he will become king. It eats and eats away at him. It drives him to kill his own king (and a bunch of other people) and set himself up as a dreadful and paranoid tyrant. He is murdered by Macduff and Macduff becomes a hero.
Though Macbeth did not kill the traitor Cawdor, he does receive his title and gains his fame in battle around the same time. In the play, Cawdor’s only importance is that his titles are given to Macbeth, something which the witches prophecy to Macbeth before he knows of it, lending the prophecy believability. But the presence of traitor at the moment of Macbeth’s rise to heroism parallel’s Macduff’s case. Macduff who gains fame through the killing of the traitor Macbeth.
Really all we know of Macduff in the play is that he is insanely loyal to Scotland. Was not the same true of Macbeth prior to the prophecy? He that was so trusted by Duncan?
And so went our thinking. Macbeth and Macduff were at different stages in a progression from heroic loyalty to tyrannical treachery. In our mini-play we filled in the gaps of Macduff’s existence with his own prophecy (similar to Macbeth’s) that prophecied he would become king. Macduff declares his loyalty to Malcolm, but ponders the prophecy while he sleeps restless the night after killing Macbeth. Unable to sleep, he rises and still pondering the murder of Malcolm, has two visions, which purposefully mirror the hallucinations Macbeth had in the play, even (with our teacher’s permission) using some of the same lines. First he sees a group of lords around a table, Macbeth and Cawdor among them, and is beckoned to take a seat at the table among these traitors by a silent Malcolm, who casts his scepter at Macduff’s feet.
Macduff, of course, takes this as a sign that he should kill Malcolm and has the same dagger vision that Macbeth famously has.
And so, without further ado, Macduff:
MACDUFF Scene 1 Macduff riding to England. MACDUFF, to himself Scotland cries, yet her pleas go unanswered. Where is Malcolm, the truest issue Of her throne? The cure to her accursed blight? ‘Midst the darkness of the storm, Malcolm! Hope by Malcolm shines, our guiding light. Haste, haste, something must be done, and soon! Macduff reaches Malcolm, dismounts. MACDUFF Hail, Malcolm, undisputed heir and king! MALCOLM Hail, friend of Scotland, hail Macduff! How go’st it? MACDUFF The same for us as for the lambs left Unprotected, their shepherd running From the wolf: they look only to their own coats. Worthy heir, do you return to Scotland? MALCOLM Nay. Were I to hang the tyrant’s head Up on my castle wall, my sad country Would be more ill-placed than it was before. I would, in my loathsome succeeding, Make Black Macbeth seem pure as snow. MACDUFF How say’st so? There is not a fiend in Hell To compare to the evil that calls Itself Macbeth and rules in your stead. MALCOLM But my sins are as infinite as stars In the black expanse of my fetid heart. Your wives, your daughters, Your matrons and your maids, could not fill up The cistern of my lust. Better Macbeth Than such a one to reign. MACDUFF All men must, at at time, succumb to lust, But fear not to take upon you what is yours. Scotland boasts dames aplenty to sat'sfy The needs of one whose blood flows blue as yours MALCOLM My vices stop not at lust: were I king I would oust the nobles from their lands, Covet one man’s wealth and another’s house: And my more-having would be as a sauce To make me hunger more. MACDUFF O Scotland, Scotland! Nation miserable, With an untitled tyrant bloody-scepter'd, When shalt thou see thy wholesome days again, Since that the truest issue of thy throne By his own interdiction stands accursed, And does blaspheme his breed? O my breast, Thy hope ends here! MALCOLM Fear not true Macduff, this noble passion Cleanses my mind of clinging doubts and fears. All that I laid upon myself is false: As yet I have never had my way with woman; I covet not the fortunes of others. As we speak, gracious Siward approaches With 10,000 men, ready to aid us In the struggle ‘gainst Scotland’s oppressor. Enter Ross MACDUFF My ever-gentle cousin, welcome hither. ROSS I thank thee, Macduff. Hail Malcolm, my king. MALCOLM What’s the newest grief? ROSS Let your ears not despise my tongue forever, Which shall possess them with the heaviest sound That ever they heard. Your castle is surprised, your wife and babies Savagely slaughtered. To relate the manner Were on the quarry of these murdered deer To add the death of you. MACDUFF I cannot but remember such things were That were most precious to me. Did heaven look on And would not take their part? MALCOLM Hold hard! Be this the whetsone of your sword. MACDUFF, to himself The noble Malcolm has spoken sooth, Pray Macduff, withhold your tears of mourning, That you may unseat the damnéd tyrant And avenge those the tyrant slaughtered. Turn your grief to rage, Harden your heart to the task ahead, Engulfed by rage, let grief spark your fury. Be wary vile serpent! The hell-kite circles, Its prey in sight. North to Scotland I ride, With Siward and ten thousand at my side. Scene 2 Macduff encounters the witches while riding to Malcolm’s coronation. WITCH All hail the great and loyal Macduff, true And rightful lord of Glamis, Cawdor, Fife, And noble born, deserving of the throne, A place for thee, worthy king hereafter. MACDUFF Fiend, hold your treach’rous talk of titles false, For worthy Malcolm soon sits on the throne, And after bringing traitor’s head, I may Begin the mourning of my flesh and blood. Pray, stop enticing fools here to their doom, And leave, ‘fore I turn and behead thee too. Witch disappears and Macduff rides on. MACDUFF, to himself These simple words within me spur a fire, But hush my thoughts: temptations burn the soul. Macduff arrives at Malcolm’s camp. MACDUFF Hail, King! For so thou art. Behold where stands Th’ usurper’s cursed head. The time is free. I see thee compassed with thy kingdom’s pearl, That speak my salutation in their minds, Whose voices I desire aloud with mine. Hail, King of Scotland! Malcolm crowned king. MALCOLM My loyal Macduff, henceforth known as Earl Of Glamis, Cawdor, Fife for service done. Bring glory back to Scotland, my servant. MACDUFF I thank thee, sir, and live in service yours. Malcolm and Macduff exit. Scene 3 Macduff in his bed chamber. MACDUFF, to himself (lying awake, twisting and turning on his bed) Blesséd sleep that does heal the maladies Of brightest day, pray, seek me out this night, For darkness does bring new light to the mind And traitor’s blood not washed from hands of mine. More tossing and turning. This supernatural soliciting Cannot be ill, cannot be good. If ill, Why hath it given me earnest of success Commencing in a truth? If good, why do I yield to that suggestion Whose horrid image doth unfix my hair And make my seated heart knock at my ribs Against the use of nature? My thoughts whirl and twist, solving me nothing. Why is it that nature’s sweet valerian Doth o’er pass me when I need it most? ‘Tis no use! Macduff rises and begins to pace about his castle. If fate will have me king, why, fate may crown me Without my stir. But scheming hold, bold mind. In firmer circumstance shall the issue Be examined. Macduff does a double-take as he passes a doorway. He enters. Around a table sit a number of murderers. There is one empty seat. Malcolm stands at the door bearing his kingly scepter. MACDUFF, out loud What treachery is this? Malcolm? In my house? What brings thee here and in such vile vestments? And who are these who dine at silent table? The murderers at the table gesture for Macduff to take the only remaining seat. But no, there sits Macbeth, and Cawdor too! What madness hast thou arranged, Malcolm? Macduff takes a step towards Malcolm. Do mine eyes speak sooth? Art thou but a specter, Escaped from some dream I knew not I had? Get thee hence! Away I say, lest I draw My blade and have thee done straightway So that you may join these dead at their bench. He draws his blade and slashes at Malcolm with no effect. Malcolm hold his scepter high before throwing it at the feet of Macduff. The figures at the table beckon one last time before disappearing. Macduff is left alone. MACDUFF, to himself Whether ‘twas a strange imagining or Some other hated image of the night, This dream hath confirmed all that I had thought: The kingdom shall be mine. Dagger appears. But what is this I see in front of me? Handle toward my hand as vision ‘fore? Reaches for dagger. I have thee not, and yet I see thee still. Dagger moves away. The tip beckons on, forward in the dark. Cloak me, thick night. Let not a star shine save That which twinkles at the hilt of mine guide. By thrusting steel into that heart of his I must murder, if I should gain the throne. So guide me, ghostly dagger, lead me to The power that I crave. I come for thee, Malcolm, feel metal cold, for it will soon Send thee seeking heaven or hell. Exit, following dagger. [finis]
Remember that thingy. . . that I said I’d do. . . a while ago? Amazingly I did do some of it! (Those of you who know me will recognize that doing something I meant to is quite an accomplishment for me).
So, here’s the update with a few more titles crossed off the list!
1. Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen (love the book and the 2005 Keira Knightley movie)
2. The Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien (ties for the top spot on my all-time favorites list with HP. books all the way! Peter Jackson didn’t do them justice!)
3. Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte
4. Harry Potter series by JK Rowling (love them to death!)
5. To Kill A Mockingbirg by Harper Lee
6. The Bible (not in its entirety. . . yet!)
7. Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte
8. Nineteen Eighty Four by George Orwell
9. His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman (the movie was awful. seriously. what was with the ending?)
10. Great Expectations by Charles Dickens
11. Little Women by Louisa M Alcott
12. Tess of the D’Ubervilles by Thomas Hardy
13. Catch 22 by Joseph Heller
14. Complete Works of Shakespeare (that’s way more than one book!)
15. Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier
16. The Hobbit by JRR Tolkien (I’m glad he went on to write LotR, this isn’t nearly as good.)
17. Birdsong by Sebastian Faulk
18. Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger
19. The Time Traveler’s Wife by Audrey Niffegger
20. Middlemarch by George Elliot
21. Gone With the Windby Margaret Mitchell
22. The Great Gatsby by F Scott Fitzgerald
23. Bleak House by Charles Dickens
24. War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy
25. The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams (as you can probably tell if you know anything about this series, I love them)
26. Brideshead Revisitedby Evelyn Waugh (it was a pretty good movie,too)
27. Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky
28. Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
29. Alice in Wonderlandby Lewis Carroll (it’s actually called Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland)
30. The Wind in the Willowsby Kenneth Grahame
31. Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
32. David Copperfield by Charles Dickens
33. Chronicles of Narniaby CS Lewis
34. Emma by Jane Austen
35. Persuasion by Jane Austen
36. The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobeby CS Lewis (didn’t they already say theChronicles of Narnia?)
37. The Kite Runner by Khaled Hossein
38. Captain Corelli’s Mandolin by Louis De Berneires
39. Memoirs of a Geisha by Arthur Golden
40. Winnie the Pooh by AA Milne (that’s actually quite a few books!)
41. Animal Farm by George Orwell
42. The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown (I read the other one—Angels and Demons. tried this one, couldn’t stand it, so I abandoned it.)
43. One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
44. A Prayer for Owen Meaney by John Irving
45. The Woman in While by Wilkie Collins
46. Anne of Green Gables by LM Montgomery (Anne is my hero. and that’s like seven books right there!)
47. Far From the Madding Crowd by Thomas Hardy
48. The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood
49. Lord of the Flies by William Golding (Maybe my all-time favorite stand-alone book)
50. Atonement by Ian McEwan (Depressing movie)
51. Life of Pi by Yann Martel
52. Dune by Frank Herbert
53. Cold Comfort Farm by Stella Gibbons
54. Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen
55. A Suitable Boy by Vikram Seth
56. The Shadow of the Wind by Carlos Ruiz Zafon
57. A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens (though I like The Prince and the Pauper more—why isn’t there any Mark Twain on here?)
58. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
59. The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime by Mark Haddon (had to read it in school after suffering through it on my own time. one of the strangest books I’ve ever read.)
60. Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
61. Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
62. Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
63. The Secret History by Donna Tartt
64. The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold (tried, failed miserably after the agony of the first five pages)
65. Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas
66. On the Road by Jack Kerouac
67. Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy
68. Bridget Jones’s Diary by Helen Fielding
69. Midnight’s Children by Salman Rushdie (though I did read Haroun and the Sea of Stories)
70. Moby Dick by Herman Melville
71. Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens
72. Draculaby Bram Stoker
73. The Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson Burnett
74. Notes From a Small Island by Bill Bryson
75. Ulysses by James Joyce
76. The Inferno by Dante
77. Swallows and Amazons by Arthur Ransome (I cannot believe this was on here! I thought I was like the only person in the universe who knew about these! They’re brilliant and way up there on my favorites list—top 5, at least. They used to be tied with HP, before LotR came along.)
78. Germinal by Emile Zola
79. Vanity Fair by William Makepeace Thackery
80. Possession by AS Byatt
81. A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens
82. Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell
83. The Color Purple by Alice Walker
84. The Remains of the Day by Kazuo Ishiguro
85. Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert
86. A Fine Balance by Rohinton Mistry
87. Charlotte’s Web by EB White
88. The Five People You Meet in Heaven by Mitch Albom
89. Adventures of Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
90. The Faraway Tree Collection by Enid Blyton
91.Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad
92. The Little Prince by Antone De Saint-Exupery
93. The Wasp Factory by Iain Banks
94. Watership Down by Richard Adams
95. A Confederacy of Dunces by John Kennedy Toole
96. A Town Like Alice by Nevil Shute
97. The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas
98. Hamlet by William Shakespeare
99. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl
100. Les Miserables by Victor Hugo (only an abridged version.)
Filed under: English I, Reflection | Tags: Anton Checkhov, Article, Bernard Shaw, Books, Charles Dickens, Charles Kingsley, Clementi, E. M. Forster, English, Henry James, Love, Oscar Wilde, Poverty, Reflection, Selfishness, Selflessness, The Happy Prince, The Importance of Being Ernest
When Selfless Turns Selfish: Or Does Selfless Even Exist?
About two days ago, I was listlessly sitting at the piano in my living room, banging at the keys occasionally to make it sound like I wasn’t doing precisely what I was, and staring at the bookshelf to my left. I must have stared at those same thirty or so books for half an hour before I actually got around to reading their titles and then finally, their authors. Brushing past various tomes of Henry James, Charles Dickens, Bernard Shaw, Anton Checkhov, E. M. Forster, and even Charles Kingsley (who are all great men in their way, but did not write the kind of thing you just randomly decide to open in order to entertain yourself while supposedly practicing Clementi), I lighted on a name which ever since fifth grade and my first encounter with The Importance Of Being Ernest has been synonymous with a sharp wit and a good laugh: Oscar Wilde.
All too often have I professed myself to be a great fan of Wilde, but really in all fairness, I was a fan of The Importance of Being Ernest, not of Wilde for I had not read enough of his work (having only read the aforementioned play and Lady Windermere’s Fan). With this in mind (as well as the promise of a laugh that would free me from the constraints of a long-dead composer’s legacy which I had been forced to stare at on and off since the ripe old age of seven) I pulled The Happy Prince and Other Tales down from the shelf.
The moment I read ‘High above the city, on a tall column, stood the statue of the Happy Prince” (Wilde, 1), I remembered a conversation with my mum about this very story in which she had told me that every time she read it, she cried. “Wonderful,” I thought sarcastically, “and just when I was looking for a laugh.” But for some reason, I can’t say what, I decided to read it anyway.
For those who don’t know, Oscar Wilde was not only a playwright, but also a writer of fairytales (and even one novel). The Happy Prince (a sadly ironic title) was one of his fairytales, as was made quite clear by the language and style it was written in. However, half a page in I started to notice that Wilde’s use of Anderson-esque speech was not in all seriousness, but rather a parody of the traditional method. This became more and more apparent as I continued and the story conveyed fewer and fewer traditional fairytale themes in that flowery but simple language and more and more of Wilde’s political, social, and in general world views.
In a daze I completed the mere fifteen pages of intense love and sadness and then turned back to page one and began again. I read it three times before I stopped and really gave my brain a chance to catch up with everything I had just read. A funny thing about the ‘aftermath’ of having read Wilde’s short story was that I couldn’t marshal my thoughts. Not that I normally am able to file them away in neatly color-coded files marked by subject and then arranged perfectly in file-cabinets or drawers—no, that I leave for people like my English teacher—but normally I could give a person the basic idea of what I thought. Not that I thought. For really after reading that story all that I knew was that it made me think. About what? I couldn’t say.
Now I’m sitting at this computer, staring at what I’ve written, and realizing that I still haven’t made any type of point about this story that so deeply affected me. And again I ask myself why it affected me. But it’s not enough to just answer “It did”. I could turn the entire thing around and tell you, my dear readers whoever you are, that sometimes things just affect you very deeply and you can’t say or know why, and pretend that was my point all along. But I won’t because I still have some faith in my ability to sort through the heaps of thought rattling around in my brain.
The Happy Prince deals with a statue of a prince who sits high atop a column and must stare out across his city day after day, witnessing the miseries of its people, but having no power to alter any of it. A swallow, late in migrating to Egypt, alights one day on his shoulder and speaks to the prince who tells the little bird of the sufferings of the people. The swallow then agrees to delay his journey to Egypt and help the impoverished seamstress mother of a sick child by taking the ruby from the prince’s sword hilt and delivering it to her. Once this is done, the prince convinces the swallow to stay longer and complete two more such missions, using the sapphires that are the Prince’s eyes. After this, the swallow stays with the prince out of love and loyalty, performing one more task to help the people of his city before the harsh winter kills him. As his little friend breathes his last breath, the prince’s leaden heart cracks and the next day he is taken away and melted for he is no longer beautiful having given his jewels and gold leaf to the poor.
Perhaps the most obvious point Wilde makes in this story is that about the deplorable position of the impoverished in the world at his time, and indeed the point holds true into this year, 2010, a little over 120 years later. However, I think such a point should be canvassed in quite a different way than I have begun here, when I have not already exceeded the suggested number of words by 800 (or so), and have not already written a preamble about nothing much.
Therefore I will examine the selflessness portrayed in the story by both the prince and the swallow. The prince sees the suffering of others and does not hesitate to give what he has to aid them in their plight, even at risk of his own ‘life’. The swallow remained in the cold, bitter winter to at first aid the prince and thereby the people and later out of his love for the prince. This seems about as selfless as it gets, right? That’s what I thought too, and even, I guess, still think on some level. but when I really began to examine the motives of both the prince and the swallow, I began to question (as it is my nature to question anything and everything) whether either of them were really ll that selfless.
According to Merriam-Webster, selfless is and adjective meaning a person ”concerned more with the needs and wishes of others than with [their] own”. Okay, sounds about right. But is that truly what either the swallow or the prince were? First I shall attack the poor little swallow’s supposed ‘selflessness’. The swallow at first refused to aid the prince in his—what shall I call it?—charity work, in the first case aiding a poor mother care for her sick son. The swallow tells the prince that he will not aid him, saying “I don’t think I like boys” (Wilde, 7). This is obviously very selfish; he is not by any definition putting other’s wishes before his own. Now one might argue that “Oh, he had a change of heart, he saw what good he could do in the world.” I don’t think so. He actually only ever agrees to aid the prince because he sees that he has made the prince sad. He goes out of his way to help someone he claims not even to like for the prince. Later on, we see that indeed the little bird loves the prince, that being his motivation for staying in the first place. And is not love an entirely selfish emotion? The swallow, it seems, had no real thought for the people, but only for the prince. If he had really cared about ending the sufferings of the poor, he would not have protested at the prince’s decision to give his eyes and skin to the cause. But he did. So doesn’t it seem fair to argue that the noble little bird was in fact guilty of the most selfish crime of love?
Now I can see people reading this and picturing me as the meanest, coldest, most uncaring misanthrope there ever was. And if you know me, I hope you realize that I didn’t get brainwashed this weekend. I merely am questioning the swallow’s motives, not his acts. His acts are as noble and unquestionably true as they could possibly be and I appreciate him and love him for it. Nor am I suggesting that love is a bad thing. Not in the slightest! Love makes the world go round, after all (and I really do like my seasons!). I really just want to question whether love is, by nature, selfish and whether, indeed, then such a thing as selflessness truly exists. For aren’t we humans a self-obsessed lot by nature as well?
The whole thing is most complicated and deserves more thought and discussion than I can give it here. But I hope, what small confusion I have given voice to here can express part of the turmoil I felt during the reading of The Happy Prince.
A/N: I know that this is long and rambling and I probably should have just deleted paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, and perhaps 8 upon their completion, but I felt that they were an important part of the process I went through to figure out what on earth I felt about The Happy Prince and should therefore be spared.
Filed under: English I, Genesis, Reflection, The Bible | Tags: Animal Rights, Article, Bible, English, Genesis, innovation, Vegetarianism
Who Are You to Play God?: God’s Power to Dole out Rights
Vegetarianism is a trend that most think of as being relatively recent, and as such is often frowned upon for being ‘new’ and ‘innovative’.* Whenever I heard this in the past, I would scoff at such narrow-mindedness (for really these people are just clutching at straws if this is their reason for eating meat) and deliver a long lecture about innovation, change, and inevitably, animal rights.
Yesterday, after completing my assigned reading from Genesis, I felt some slight triumph in the fact that I had yet another argument to add to my list: God decreed vegetarianism on Day six, along with the creation of humankind. And if that didn’t constitute ancient, I wasn’t sure what did. However my elation was short lived, for just a day later I had completed reading Genesis chapters eight and nine with a sense of nothing short of outrage.
For those who aren’t familiar with this section of Genesis, it describes the great flood and Noah’s (and the rest of mankind’s, though they are ignored beyond the fact that they were ‘wiped out’) tribulations. After Noah and his family have exited their ark safely, God speaks to them saying “. . . you shall not eat flesh with it’s life. . . For your own lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: from every animal I will require it and from human beings, each one for the blood of another, I will require a reckoning for human life” (Gen. 9.4-5).
Now honestly, I had to read this about six times in order to discern any meaning, but once I thought I had figured it out, I felt like yelling “Hypocrite!” to the heavens. One quick check with the Oxford experts confirmed my ideas as correct. God’s character really is revoking His earlier command of vegetarianism, allowing people to take the lives of animals in order to get a little of their aggression and violence out and as some kind of payment for allowing humankind to survive. How sadistic is that?
Being vegetarian and someone who thinks all beings are created equal, I’m completely biased in this matter, but really I think that what God does in this situation is like the president of the United States suddenly deciding he had the power to say that it was acceptable to hunt Californians for food. Oh, and actually he wants you to kill them in order to pay him for allowing your state to survive. So go kill some Californians. Alright, so maybe that analogy was a little extreme, but I think I got my point across.
Of course God created the animals, but this means He was the one who gave them hearts and minds and feelings. For Him to just decide that they are inferior to humans and therefore should suffer for the transgressions and mistakes of the human race is insane. If they were beings enough to be exempt from killing before, what now has changed besides God’s whim? Nothing. The animals are still the same, but God’s special creation has disappointed Him, so someone must suffer. But mankind? No. They shall suffer for a mere paragraph in the history of the world, for they were created in God’s image. However animals (who look nothing like God—or so we are told) shall bear the burden of the human’s crime for the rest of eternity.
If I were talking about anyone else, I would be asking the question: “Who are you to play God?” Of course, in my situation this makes absolutely no sense, so instead I’ll go a step further. Who gave God the power to say who got what rights? Why is God allowed to hand some their basics rights and look at the others and say “Sorry, there weren’t enough to go around”? Why is it different for God than for anyone else? Isn’t what God did in this situation similar to what Hitler said about the Jews? So why is it different?
And to everyone who just read that and thought “They’re just dumb animals,” I say: “So what? You’re just a dumb human. Can I kill you now?”
*However absurd this may sound, I know it to be true as I am a vegetarian myself and have encountered many such geniuses.
A/N: I have absolutely nothing against California.
Filed under: English I, Genesis, Reflection, The Bible | Tags: Article, Bible, English, Genesis, God, Megalomania, Reflection
Divine Megalomania: God’s Self-Obsession
God is generous. God is forgiving. God is loving. And God should be worshipped unequivocally. Every two-year-old knows it. But what if every two-year-old knew the definition of megalomania? If every Christian two-year-old in the world knew that a megalomaniac is someone obsessed with their own power, might they not question whether God wasn’t one of these egoists? I do, and I’m not two years old. Just the fact alone that God “created humankind in His image” (Gen. 1.27) proves that He enjoys self-glorification. The idea that mankind is modeled after God is even stressed in the Bible—appearing four times in just two verses in most translations—underlining God’s tendency toward self-exaltation.
And this is not the only example. Throughout the Bible, there is talk of the glory of God, various people glorifying God, and essentially how wonderful God thinks He is. A prime example of this is the hymn “Gloria In Excelsis Deo” (Latin for “Glory to God in the Highest”) from the lines “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace among those whom he favors!” (Luke 2.14). Again, we are asked to glorify Him, to lift Him up (as if He needs to be any higher!), and to revere Him—along with no one else. It is unquestionable that God has power; in fact He has quite a lot of it. But such obligatory adoration is quite unnecessary and only serves to make God look power-obsessed.
The way in which Creation is presented in Genesis suggests that God created the universe in order that He might be worshipped completely by His creations. This is particularly prominent in the Genesis Chapter 3 during which Eve explains that God has told her that “you shall no eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die” (Gen. 3.3). To this the serpent replies, “You will not die, for God knows that when you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3.4-5). Of course the Bible presents this in such a way that it seems that the serpent is twisting God’s words only to trick Eve into eating the forbidden fruit, but it cannot be denied that the end result is precisely what the serpent predicted. Adam and Eve gain the ‘divine knowledge’ of good and evil and God subsequently drives them out of Eden.
Why, though, would God see the need to throw His own creations out? I see three possibilities. First, that He intended to anyway, and was merely playing with Adam and Eve. Second, that it was merely because they flouted his decree regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And third, that He really was afraid that they would become His equals (or that they already were). All three of these evidence God’s sublime megalomania. In the first case, God demonstrates that He enjoys having power over others (or really everything). In the second, that He is so obsessed with his power that He cannot stand to have anyone cross Him in any way. And in the third, that because of His love for His own power, God fears the idea of another becoming his equal as Adam and Eve might’ve done if they had been allowed to remain in Eden. Based off of the serpent’s comment that Adam and Eve would “be like God” if they ate of the fruit of the forbidden tree, the last seems the most likely to me, though any really could be possible.
Really, throughout the Bible, God doesn’t give people a choice. There isn’t a “worship God, or don’t worship God” message, instead it proclaims: “worship God or burn in Hell”. And though there may be an ‘or’ in there, I really don’t consider that much of a choice. If God weren’t self-obsessed and afraid of losing His power, then He wouldn’t feel the need to require people to worship Him. But as He does, I feel justified in dubbing Him a megalomaniac. But then, what god isn’t?
Filed under: English I, Uncategorized | Tags: Douglas Adams, English, Random
Hi!
Mostly Harmless is a blog I’ve begun for my English class to publish assignments on, though I’m determined to post other stuff as well (when I get the chance). The articles and stories here fall into three categories: Open Prompts, Creative Pieces, and Quick Responses. Feel free to drop me a review (or just a comment), I really appreciate them!
And if you don’t get the title, Mostly Harmless, you’re really not up in your Douglas Adams!
5E
—Update—
For some reason I feel compelled to preserve the above for posterity. But anyway, important thing is: School’s out, I’m not a Freshman, and technically the blog is done. Technically being the key word, I don’t intend to stop yet!
Filed under: English I, Harry Potter, Quick Response, The Golden Compass | Tags: Article, English, Harry Potter, Philip Pullman, The Golden Compass
Old Versus New: Ignorance is Progress
During a discussion regarding Lyra’s future and well-being, the Librarian of Jordan College makes an interesting observation of human nature to the Master. He says, with regard to Lyra’s apparent disinterest in any serious matter, “That’s the duty of the old. . . to be anxious on behalf of the young. And the duty of the young is to scorn the anxiety of the old” (Pullman 32).
The Librarian makes this observation in response to the Master’s comment that giving Lyra more information would ease his anxiety for her. In responding thus, the Librarian expresses his feeling that no matter what steps they take to ensure Lyra’s safety, they will still worry for her, and she will still scorn their worry, brushing it aside as unnecessary. There is a parallel between this relationship of the young and old that the Librarian describes and that of Harry Potter and Dumbledore. Throughout the series, Dumbledore worries on Harry’s behalf while Harry either dismisses the worry, feeling that it is unproductive or unneeded, or resents it. Many a time in the books does Harry end up shouting at Dumbledore for just such a reason.
However, the disregard of the young for the worries of the old is perfectly natural. The old are the wise for a reason as they have had much more time to see the world than the young have. Their age gives them perspective and allows them to recognize the folly of youth. Of course, with all this in mind, it is perfectly natural for the old to worry about the young who are so often ignorant of the ways of the world. In the eyes of the old, the young are naïve, open to change (for better or for worse), and therefore in need of guidance—for if they will not worry themselves, someone must do it for them. Nonetheless, the young continue to be open-minded in their naïveté, and, really, it is better for the human race that they are. Without the continuous cycle between the anxiety of the old and amenability of the young, their would be no progress. The old have seen too much of the world to be open to new ideas and therefore the concept of change scares them. Without the daring and reckless youth of the young, few revolutionary ideas would be tested or used and the world would have no chance at advancement.
Proposition: Without the inherent conflict between the old and the young, there would be no progress in the world.
Filed under: English I, Open Prompt | Tags: Apocalypse, Article, Douglas Adams, English, Global Warming
Turning a Blind Eye: Is Ignorance Ever Bliss?
In a speech entitled Is There an Artificial God? held at Magdelene College in Cambridge, Douglas Adams asked his audience to “… imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for” (Adams). In this part of his speech, Adams was addressing the tendency of the world’s population to ignore their surroundings and to go on with life without a worry for the future.
Speech: Douglas Adams’ Is There an Artificial God?, held at Magdelene College, Cambridge, 1998.
Biography: Concise biography of Douglas Adams.
I think that Adams’ metaphor of the puddle is extremely relevant in our world today as we, like the puddle, are paying no attention to many things that threaten us and our existence, in the hope that they will just go away. What I am mostly alluding to is global warming, which—though we have scientific evidence proving it exists and that it is doing damage to our planet—people continue to insist on ignoring. Adams addresses the idea in his speech that instead of facing the unstoppable and merely adjusting their perspectives, people have an inclination toward completely avoiding the topic. This is perfectly understandable and is part of human nature, but it is an attitude that too many in our world—in our country—have adopted and live their lives by.
Living this way does not allow for necessary measures to be taken against an impending disaster (or whatever the case may be) or even—in the case of something inevitable—just the changing of one’s mentality in preparation for the event. To those who may argue that this philosophy of embracing the inevitable (or maybe trying to do something about it) is—in the long run—useless as a person would spend life worrying and not living, I shake my head because really opening one’s eyes to reality not only broadens one’s perspective on life but allows one to enjoy it more fully, no matter what it entails.
Proposition: When faced with the unpreventable, people often have a tendency to turn a blind eye and hope fate will leave them alone.
