I apologize if you don't care to read old dead white dudes' poetry, but I read this poem for class this past week and really liked what it had to say on religion. It lines closely with my own beliefs.
If you do choose to read this rather long poem, then I hope you enjoy it.
From Satires: Satire 3
Kind pithy chokes my spleen, brave scorn forbids
Those tears to issue which swell my eyelids;
I must not laugh, nor weep sins, and be wise,
Can railing then cure these worn maladies?
Is not our mistress, fair Religion,
As worthy of all our soul's devotion,
As virtue was to the first blinded age?
Are not heaven's joys as valiant to assuage
Lusts, as earth's honor was to them? Alas,
As we do them in means, shall they surpass
Us in the end, and shall thy father's spirit
Meet blind philosophers in heaven, whose merit
Of strict life may be imputed faith, and hear
Thee, whom he taught so easy ways and near
To follow, damned? O if thou dar'st, fear this;
This fear great courage and high valor is.
Dar'st thou aid mutinous Dutch, and dar'st thou lay
Thee in ships, wooden sepulchers, a prey
To leaders' rage, to storms, to shot, to dearth?
Dar'st thou dive seas and dungeons of the earth?
Hast thou courageous fire to thaw the ice
Of frozen north discoveries? And thrice
Colder than salamanders, like divine
Childern in the oven, fires of Spain, and the line,
Whose countries limbecks to our bodies be,
Canst thou for gain bear? And must every he
Which cries not "Goddess!" to thy mistress, draw,
Or eat thy poisonous words? Courage of straw!
O desperate coward, wilt thou seem bold, and
To thy foes and his (who made thee to stand
Sentinel in his world's garrison) thus yield,
And for forbidden wars, leave the appointed field?
Know thy foes: the foul Devil, whom thou
Strivest to please, for hate, not love, would allow
The fain his whole realm to be quit; and as
The world's all parts wither away and pass,
So the world's self, thy other loved foe, is
In her decrepit wane, and thou, loving this,
Dost love a withered and worn strumpet; last,
Flesh (itself's death) and joys which flesh can taste,
Thou lovest; and thy fair goodly soul, which doth
Give this flesh power to taste joy, thou dost loathe.
Seek true religion. O where? Mirreus,
Thinking her unhoused here, and fled from us,
Seeks her at Rome; there, because he doth know
That she was there a thousand years ago;
He loves her rags so, as we here obey
The statecloth where the prince sat yesterday.
Crantz to such brave loves will no be enthralled
But loves her only, who at Geneva is called
Religion, plain, simple, sullen, young,
Contemptuous, yet unhandsome; as among
Lecherous humors, there is one that judges
No wenches wholesome by coarse country drudges.
Graius stays still at home here, and because
Some preachers, vile ambitious bawds, and laws,
Still new like fashions, bid him think that she
Which dwells with us is only perfect, he
Embraceth her whom his godfathers will
Tender to him, being tender, as wards still
Take such wives as their guardians offer, or
Pay values.Careless Phrygius doth abhor
All, because he cannot be good, as one,
Knowing some women whores, dares marry none.
Gracchus loves all as one, and thinks that so
As women do in diverse countries go
In divers habits, yet are still one kind,
So doth, so is Religion; and this blind-
ness too much light breeds; but unmoved thou
Of force must one, and forced but one allow;
And the right; ask thy father which is she;
Let him ask his, though truth and falsehood be
Near twins, yet truth a little elder is;
Be busy to seek her, believe me this,
He's not of none, nor worst, that seeks the best.
To adore, or scorn an image, or protest,
May all be bad; doubt wisely; in strange way
To stand inquiring right is not to stray;
To sleep, or run wrong is. On a huge hill,
Cragged and steep, Truth stands, and he that will
Reach her, about must, and about must go;
And what the hill's suddenness resists, win so;
Yet strive so, that before age, death's twilight,
Thy soul rest, for none can work in that night.
To will implies delay; therefore now do.
Hard deeds, the body's pains; hard knowledge too
The mind's endeavors reach, and mysteries
Are like the sun, dazzling, yet plain to all eyes.
Keep the truth which thou hast found; men do not stand
In so ill case here that God hath with his hand
Signed kings' blank charters to kill whom they hate,
Nor are they vicars, but hangmen to fate.
Fool and wretch, wilt thoug let thy soul be tied
To man's laws, by which she shall not be tried
At the last day? Oh, will it then boot thee
To say a Philip of a Gregory,
A Harry, or a Martin taught me this?
Is not this excuse for mere contraries
Equally strong? Cannot both sides say so?
That thou mayest rightly obey power, her bounds know;
Those passed, her nature, and name is changed; to be
Then humble to her is idolatry.
As streams are, power is; those blest flowers that dwell
At the rough stream's calm head, thrive and do well,
But having left their roots, and themselves given
To the stream's tyrannous rage, alas, are driven
Through mills, and rocks, and woods, and at last, almost
Consumed in going, in the sea are lost:
So perish souls, which more choose men's unjust
Power from God claimed, than God himself to trust.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Nature in a Video Game
For my major paper in my Ecocriticism class, I have narrowed down my possible topics to be a focus on one game (and possibly its supporting material) and it's interpretation of the relationship between man and nature. I'm looking at either Final Fantasy VII or Pokemon (Red/Blue/Yellow).
I think it would be a lot of fun and really interesting (and difficult) to work on Final Fantasy VII. I think the way nature is portrayed/interacted with in that game is much more complex than it is in Pokemon. This makes it more interesting, but also less likely that I could actually explore it in any depth in a ten-or-so page paper. Not to mention, I don't have the time to play through the game again, and despite beating it twice, there's still a lot I don't know or understand. After reading (read: skimming) Ents, Elves and Eriador, I think it would be possible and interesting to write a book on it. I feel like a book would be more feasible than an article at this point.
Pokemon, on the other hand, isn't quite as complex, but does seem to have an interesting and unique take on humanity's relationship with nature, particularly in relations with animals. I'm not sure what I would say right now, but I know that, looking at the game through a ecocritic-lens, I'm going to come down on the side of the game reinforcing poor cultural considerations of nature. There's definitely a man-over-nature aspect to the series that wouldn't allow me to approve of it as an ecocritic.
An ecocritic (which I have to pretend to be for the paper) would disapprove of the game's domination of the 'wild' by people. Nature is only valuable based on its usefulness. Tall grasses and the like are valuable because they allow the trainer to capture new pokemon or force their pokemon to fight and become stronger. There is definitely a "dog-fighting" type ethic to this game, which was touched on in the live-action Pokemon movie spoof trailer. However, despite the fact that the character is participating in this domination over animals for his own ends, there are still criminals, Team Rocket, whose cruelty to pokemon must be stopped. So one question I would need to explore in my paper is where the line is drawn.
The TV show could be useful for a backstory to the game, with a character treating and interacting with pokemon in a certain way. The game implies that your character has the same kind-heartedness that Ash does in the show, but there is no ostensible proof of this. Other characters in the game comment that your pokemon like you no matter what you do. The closest there is to a guide for how you are treating your pokemon is the expressions of Pikachu in Pokemon Yellow, and even then, they are pretty much guaranteed to improve as long as you keep Pikachu in your party, and usually conscious. The importance of the feelings of your pokemon became more important in later series, but the fact still remains that the game implies that pokemon (read: animals) are best off under the protection and control of a person (or really, a ten-year-old kid).
While I still have plenty of questions on how I'm going to write this paper, at this point, I've learned that if I don't have questions, my paper will probably not be very good.
All the best to you and your,
-TES
PS. I know, I'm a huge dork, but you should know that already.
I think it would be a lot of fun and really interesting (and difficult) to work on Final Fantasy VII. I think the way nature is portrayed/interacted with in that game is much more complex than it is in Pokemon. This makes it more interesting, but also less likely that I could actually explore it in any depth in a ten-or-so page paper. Not to mention, I don't have the time to play through the game again, and despite beating it twice, there's still a lot I don't know or understand. After reading (read: skimming) Ents, Elves and Eriador, I think it would be possible and interesting to write a book on it. I feel like a book would be more feasible than an article at this point.
Pokemon, on the other hand, isn't quite as complex, but does seem to have an interesting and unique take on humanity's relationship with nature, particularly in relations with animals. I'm not sure what I would say right now, but I know that, looking at the game through a ecocritic-lens, I'm going to come down on the side of the game reinforcing poor cultural considerations of nature. There's definitely a man-over-nature aspect to the series that wouldn't allow me to approve of it as an ecocritic.
An ecocritic (which I have to pretend to be for the paper) would disapprove of the game's domination of the 'wild' by people. Nature is only valuable based on its usefulness. Tall grasses and the like are valuable because they allow the trainer to capture new pokemon or force their pokemon to fight and become stronger. There is definitely a "dog-fighting" type ethic to this game, which was touched on in the live-action Pokemon movie spoof trailer. However, despite the fact that the character is participating in this domination over animals for his own ends, there are still criminals, Team Rocket, whose cruelty to pokemon must be stopped. So one question I would need to explore in my paper is where the line is drawn.
The TV show could be useful for a backstory to the game, with a character treating and interacting with pokemon in a certain way. The game implies that your character has the same kind-heartedness that Ash does in the show, but there is no ostensible proof of this. Other characters in the game comment that your pokemon like you no matter what you do. The closest there is to a guide for how you are treating your pokemon is the expressions of Pikachu in Pokemon Yellow, and even then, they are pretty much guaranteed to improve as long as you keep Pikachu in your party, and usually conscious. The importance of the feelings of your pokemon became more important in later series, but the fact still remains that the game implies that pokemon (read: animals) are best off under the protection and control of a person (or really, a ten-year-old kid).
While I still have plenty of questions on how I'm going to write this paper, at this point, I've learned that if I don't have questions, my paper will probably not be very good.
All the best to you and your,
-TES
PS. I know, I'm a huge dork, but you should know that already.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Oppression of Literary Studies
I recently found out about a website called The Book Buzz. This website was established by a group of high school parents from Richland, Washington who demanded that the language arts teachers at first one, then a second high school in the area, hand over their syllabi and reading lists. Those who refused were informed that their syllabi and all other teaching materials were in the public domain, presumably because they are government employees. Aside from the horrendous rights infringements of such a statement, the parents then compiled a list the books being taught and set about grading their "content and themes" and supposedly did not presume to judge "the literary merit of the books."
Of the expansive list of books, only eight were judged as deserving an "A" for content and themes. Presumably this would mean that these books are the only ones appropriate for high school students. While my count was a cursory thing, I couldn't help but notice that two of the books given "A"s were The Lord of the Rings and The Giver. I would hope both are more than appropriate, considering I read them both in middle school, if not before.
Interestingly, of the ten Shakespeare plays listed (Hamlet, Julius Caesar, King Lear, Macbeth, Othello, Richard III, Romeo and Juliet, Merchant of Venice, Taming of the Shrew, and The Tempest) only one, Romeo and Juliet, was rated, receiving a "B." Now I'm not going to tell these people how to do their jobs, but it seems to me that trysting teenage lovers who end up both committing suicide for their love is not exactly appropriate for these apparently fragile minded children they have in high school in Richland, Washington.
From the standpoint of evaluating books on their content and themes, and not their literary merit, I don't think it would be difficult to give "D"s to any of Shakespeare's plays (these parents have also decided that giving a book an "F" is either too harsh, because no one should fail, or it is likely to make them appear unreasonable). Hamlet's themes include suicide, fratricide, incest, murder, insanity, and plenty of dirty jokes along the way (not that students would ever catch them, let alone most parents). How about Macbeth, Othello, or King Lear, the other three of Shakespeare's masterworks? Well, there's certainly plenty of murder, scheming against authority, insanity, and so on, once again, with a bunch of dirty jokes thrown in.
More on their grading scale, they claim that the grades are associated with the MPAA rating scale, with A = G, B=PG, C=PG-13, and D=R or NC-17. Interestingly, the youngest grade with books rated in this website is 9th grade, were students are presumably 14 when they enter. By their own rating scale, a C and above is appropriate for all classes, with all of their grades being appropriate for seniors and progressively for juniors. So while, ostensibly, the "grade" of a book is solely a way of gauging it's audience appropriateness, then why not stick solely with the MPAA rating scale they seemingly based the grades off of?
The most obvious answer is that saying a book should be rated PG-13 doesn't carry nearly the same weight as giving it a "C." A "C" seems to question its use in the classroom, while rating it PG-13 would not, since all students should be about that age range or above. However, it's pretty clear to me that this grading does not always follow such a grading scale. Case in point: The Lord of the Rings. As a movie adaptation it received a PG-13 rating from the MPAA. Now, granted, the movie had graphic depictions of warfare and the books aren't necessarily as detailed, but there is still considerable amounts of violence and threatening violence that there is no way I think it could be rated G.
On the other hand, Ender's Game, an ostensibly young adult novel, received a "C" or PG-13 rating. The rating was based on "language, primarily crudeness but some profanity." The most frequently used profane word was bastard "(over 13 times)," and the most serious curse word, shit, was used three times. However, it was used three times, repeated in one sentence, so only in one instance was the word used: "Shit-talking, shit-talking, shit-talking!" The primary "potentially objectionable theme" was "Derogatory/disrespectful religious comments," in particular, statements such as "people do strange things for religion." Now, for anyone who has read the Ender series, there is a pretty extensive discussion of religion going on. The books criticize entirely faith based religion. That is, numerous characters are depicted as taking actions based on blind faith which have horrendous consequences. However, other characters who think about their faith, and examine their faith and situation critically, are shown to be more in keeping with their faith. Characters who think about faith follow the message and meaning of their faith, while those who follow faith alone without thinking follow only the word and not the meaning.
This is an aspect of literature that makes it impossible to simply excise pieces of text and use them to criticize the book as potentially offensive or objectionable. By doing so, you are failing to examine the literary reasons why the author included such language and themes. By avoiding a discussion of literary merit, this group excuses themselves from actually thinking about these books. A piece of literature, any literature, is not thousands of words used at random to tell an arbitrary story, and the implication that themes are unrelated to literary merit and thus effort, is an insult to the dozens, if not hundreds of authors in this list, and the millions of people who have read these works and invested time into examining the elements of the themes and content. The words and usages in books are put there purposefully by the author, not at random.
By judging and questioning the choices made by the underpaid men and women who see it as their duty to give the best possible education to their students, the parents who formed this website are questioning the very merit of the people teaching their children. The reason to send children to school, ostensibly, is to allow them to learn from people who know more about subjects than the parents do. The biggest reason children need to go to school is so that they are exposed to the thoughts of people outside their family unit and are allowed to develop critical thinking skills that will give them the best opportunity to be successful.
Socrates said that "the only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing." Compared to all the knowledge out there, known and unknown, any knowledge you can develop in your lifetime is as infinitesimal as to be nothing. I believe that a parent's goal should be to hope that tiny little bit that his or her child knows is just a little greater than his or her own.
The greatest tragedy of growing up is to no longer ask "why?" to every answer.
-TES
Of the expansive list of books, only eight were judged as deserving an "A" for content and themes. Presumably this would mean that these books are the only ones appropriate for high school students. While my count was a cursory thing, I couldn't help but notice that two of the books given "A"s were The Lord of the Rings and The Giver. I would hope both are more than appropriate, considering I read them both in middle school, if not before.
Interestingly, of the ten Shakespeare plays listed (Hamlet, Julius Caesar, King Lear, Macbeth, Othello, Richard III, Romeo and Juliet, Merchant of Venice, Taming of the Shrew, and The Tempest) only one, Romeo and Juliet, was rated, receiving a "B." Now I'm not going to tell these people how to do their jobs, but it seems to me that trysting teenage lovers who end up both committing suicide for their love is not exactly appropriate for these apparently fragile minded children they have in high school in Richland, Washington.
From the standpoint of evaluating books on their content and themes, and not their literary merit, I don't think it would be difficult to give "D"s to any of Shakespeare's plays (these parents have also decided that giving a book an "F" is either too harsh, because no one should fail, or it is likely to make them appear unreasonable). Hamlet's themes include suicide, fratricide, incest, murder, insanity, and plenty of dirty jokes along the way (not that students would ever catch them, let alone most parents). How about Macbeth, Othello, or King Lear, the other three of Shakespeare's masterworks? Well, there's certainly plenty of murder, scheming against authority, insanity, and so on, once again, with a bunch of dirty jokes thrown in.
More on their grading scale, they claim that the grades are associated with the MPAA rating scale, with A = G, B=PG, C=PG-13, and D=R or NC-17. Interestingly, the youngest grade with books rated in this website is 9th grade, were students are presumably 14 when they enter. By their own rating scale, a C and above is appropriate for all classes, with all of their grades being appropriate for seniors and progressively for juniors. So while, ostensibly, the "grade" of a book is solely a way of gauging it's audience appropriateness, then why not stick solely with the MPAA rating scale they seemingly based the grades off of?
The most obvious answer is that saying a book should be rated PG-13 doesn't carry nearly the same weight as giving it a "C." A "C" seems to question its use in the classroom, while rating it PG-13 would not, since all students should be about that age range or above. However, it's pretty clear to me that this grading does not always follow such a grading scale. Case in point: The Lord of the Rings. As a movie adaptation it received a PG-13 rating from the MPAA. Now, granted, the movie had graphic depictions of warfare and the books aren't necessarily as detailed, but there is still considerable amounts of violence and threatening violence that there is no way I think it could be rated G.
On the other hand, Ender's Game, an ostensibly young adult novel, received a "C" or PG-13 rating. The rating was based on "language, primarily crudeness but some profanity." The most frequently used profane word was bastard "(over 13 times)," and the most serious curse word, shit, was used three times. However, it was used three times, repeated in one sentence, so only in one instance was the word used: "Shit-talking, shit-talking, shit-talking!" The primary "potentially objectionable theme" was "Derogatory/disrespectful religious comments," in particular, statements such as "people do strange things for religion." Now, for anyone who has read the Ender series, there is a pretty extensive discussion of religion going on. The books criticize entirely faith based religion. That is, numerous characters are depicted as taking actions based on blind faith which have horrendous consequences. However, other characters who think about their faith, and examine their faith and situation critically, are shown to be more in keeping with their faith. Characters who think about faith follow the message and meaning of their faith, while those who follow faith alone without thinking follow only the word and not the meaning.
This is an aspect of literature that makes it impossible to simply excise pieces of text and use them to criticize the book as potentially offensive or objectionable. By doing so, you are failing to examine the literary reasons why the author included such language and themes. By avoiding a discussion of literary merit, this group excuses themselves from actually thinking about these books. A piece of literature, any literature, is not thousands of words used at random to tell an arbitrary story, and the implication that themes are unrelated to literary merit and thus effort, is an insult to the dozens, if not hundreds of authors in this list, and the millions of people who have read these works and invested time into examining the elements of the themes and content. The words and usages in books are put there purposefully by the author, not at random.
By judging and questioning the choices made by the underpaid men and women who see it as their duty to give the best possible education to their students, the parents who formed this website are questioning the very merit of the people teaching their children. The reason to send children to school, ostensibly, is to allow them to learn from people who know more about subjects than the parents do. The biggest reason children need to go to school is so that they are exposed to the thoughts of people outside their family unit and are allowed to develop critical thinking skills that will give them the best opportunity to be successful.
Socrates said that "the only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing." Compared to all the knowledge out there, known and unknown, any knowledge you can develop in your lifetime is as infinitesimal as to be nothing. I believe that a parent's goal should be to hope that tiny little bit that his or her child knows is just a little greater than his or her own.
The greatest tragedy of growing up is to no longer ask "why?" to every answer.
-TES
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)