http://insanemiscellany.wordpress.com/
From the mind that brought you Junkyard Wolf's Junkyard
Showing posts with label writerstuff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label writerstuff. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
The Things I Learned
From a single John C. Wright* blog post:
I realized that Robert A. Heinlein could not write romances if his life depended on it. Of the Heinlein novels I've read, he tends to go one of two ways when it comes to romantic relationships. He either goes all bland, wooden and generic (Starship Troopers), or he goes batshit preachy for free love (Stranger in a Strange Land).
***
I also agree that the relationship RAH can write best is that between father and son. The two Heinlein novels I love most (Starship Troopers and Citizen of the Galaxy) feature very warm and believable father-son relationships (Johnny Rico and his dad, Thorby and Baslim).
***
It was brought up in the thread that the reason old-guard hard sci fi tended to be excluded from literary canons is that these sci fi writers were more interested in ideas than in people. I suspect that this is true, or at least a key pillar of truth among others. I don't know if this says more about sci fi or about literary canons in general. Asimov, for example, did write more human robots than he did humans.
***
I also learned that the sparkly vampire genre is called "paranormal romance", or "para-rom" for short. Finally, a term upon which to vent my utter disgust.
***
Yes, I too prefer the Professor van Helsing school of dealing with monsters like vampires, werewolves and the like. Kill them all, let Satan sort them out.
A vampire is target practice, not my future son-in-law. I'll shoot his glittery ass. With silver, garlic-coated, dipped-in-holy-water bullets if I have to.
***
* John C. Wright is a science fiction author. I find it really enjoyable reading a writer blogging about the craft. it also helps that I am agreeable to his other ideas too.
I realized that Robert A. Heinlein could not write romances if his life depended on it. Of the Heinlein novels I've read, he tends to go one of two ways when it comes to romantic relationships. He either goes all bland, wooden and generic (Starship Troopers), or he goes batshit preachy for free love (Stranger in a Strange Land).
***
I also agree that the relationship RAH can write best is that between father and son. The two Heinlein novels I love most (Starship Troopers and Citizen of the Galaxy) feature very warm and believable father-son relationships (Johnny Rico and his dad, Thorby and Baslim).
***
It was brought up in the thread that the reason old-guard hard sci fi tended to be excluded from literary canons is that these sci fi writers were more interested in ideas than in people. I suspect that this is true, or at least a key pillar of truth among others. I don't know if this says more about sci fi or about literary canons in general. Asimov, for example, did write more human robots than he did humans.
***
I also learned that the sparkly vampire genre is called "paranormal romance", or "para-rom" for short. Finally, a term upon which to vent my utter disgust.
***
Yes, I too prefer the Professor van Helsing school of dealing with monsters like vampires, werewolves and the like. Kill them all, let Satan sort them out.
A vampire is target practice, not my future son-in-law. I'll shoot his glittery ass. With silver, garlic-coated, dipped-in-holy-water bullets if I have to.
***
* John C. Wright is a science fiction author. I find it really enjoyable reading a writer blogging about the craft. it also helps that I am agreeable to his other ideas too.
Friday, January 8, 2010
The Humanities and Man’s Purpose
Article 1: The End of the Humanities
Question 1: Whether the Inner Life is the Object of the Humanities.
Objection 1. The purpose of the Humanities is to form future scholars. The Humanities have achieved their proper end once they have prepared a scholar for future scholarly endeavors.
Objection 2. Furthermore, the goal of the Humanities is to know the process of human acts. The Humanities study the deeds and works of man. These are the products of human acts. To know how these human acts are carried out (i.e., How did Duke Wellington win Waterloo?) and the reasoning behind human acts is the end of the humanities.
Objection 3. Furthermore, the end of the Humanities is knowledge of itself. The Humanities have achieved their end if they can provide man with knowledge of its subjects, such as history, literature, etc.
On the contrary, the Humanities are oriented toward the study of the inner life of man. The study of the products, constructs and concerns of man are all done in light of trying to understand the inner life of man.
The inner life of man flows within man. However, man’s inner life is embodied, and this embodied nature leads man to wish to express through the body what is in the inner life. These expressions, be they novels, statues, paintings or historical choices, all reveal aspects of man’s inner life. The inner life is not revealed in a straightforward fashion, like the result of a scientific experiment. Take the painting, for example. When a person looks at a painting, one is struck by the beauty of the expression. When one delves into the techniques used to bring the painting about, it is not an interest in the techniques per se, but to see how the techniques contribute to the expression. In some cases, even the technique itself is part of the expression. Something resonates in the viewer, something that was part of the artist, and in this, the inner life is shared and expressed. It is the imprint of the inner life in all these works and acts that the Humanities is concerned with.
Reply to Objection 1. While the formation of future scholars is certainly a possible consequence of the use of the Humanities, it is not the direct end. Scholars and students may be put in the proper disposition to know when going through the Humanities, but this is an effect of the attempt to study the inner life of man, an inner life that they, too, possess.
Reply to Objection 2. Learning in the Humanities does not stop with the human product or the human act, but with the human being. Knowing the reason behind a historical act, or the meaning and rationale behind a painting, is not enough for the student of the Humanities. What must be sought, in the motivations and expressions of man, is the inner life reaching out beyond itself, resonating with other inner lives through the ages. It is not enough, for example, to learn that it was a threat to his kingdom that prompted Charles Martel to defy the Moors. One must also wonder at what this historical figure so loved and so hated, that he would risk the fate of his entire people on the outcome of one battle. The Humanities require that the scholar dig deeper.
Reply to Objection 3. While knowledge of the products and acts of man are a worthy end in themselves, the Humanities do not dwell on knowing the products and acts as things in themselves. The Humanities see these things as the consequence of man having an inner life. History, for example, has to contend with free will, and not the simple determinism of a chain of causes and effects. Literature has to contend, not just with the words, but with the metaphors. The Humanities seek to see past the appearance, and into the inner structure itself.
Article 2: Whether God is the End of the Humanities.
Objection 1. The Humanities study the things of man, not the things of God. By virtue of the very name “Humanities”, the subject in focus is man, not God. Therefore, the Humanities have nothing to do with God.
Objection 2. Furthermore, Theology is only a part of the Humanities. While some aspect of the Humanities touches on the subject of God, this is not the entirety of the Humanities. Therefore, God is a part, not the end, of the Humanities.
Objection 3. Furthermore, the Humanities is the study of man. Not all men believe in God. Therefore, no study of man can ever have God as its end.
On the contrary, the ultimate end of the Humanities is to seek God. The inner life ultimately seeks God, and can be understood best in that context. Since the Humanities seek to understand the inner life of man, the Humanities must be a seeking of God.
The goal of the inner life is knowledge. To know is to be in union with the inner structure of an object. However, not all inner structures of objects are equally desirable for union. The inner life ultimately seeks union with something greater than itself above union with objects lesser than itself. One need only look at human actions. The knowing of a loved one is more desirable than the knowing of an animal. The knowing of a pet animal is superior to the knowing of a chair. The knowing of God, the highest of beings, is the most desired end of an inner life that seeks union with something greater than itself. As St. Augustine once said, “the heart is restless until it rests in You, O Lord.”
Reply to Objection 1. The Humanities are focused, not on the things of man, on man himself. The things of man are considered as the expressions of his inner life; an inner life that is constantly seeking union with God. To know man is to know that which he seeks, just as to know art is to know the beauty of the expression.
Reply to Objection 2. While Theology is but one part of the Humanities, the seeking of God is not confined to Theology. While Theology deals with doctrines, dogma and revelation about the nature of God, it does not touch upon the ways by which man seeks God, which can say something about God not readily apparent in the study of revelation. Besides, there is a reason why Theology was once called the Queen of the Sciences. It was in Theology that scholars tried to make sense of every other attempt to seek God. However, this cannot be done in Theology alone. The other disciplines of the Humanities are necessary.
Reply to Objection 3. Even those who profess to believe that God does not exist still seek some vestige of God. Poets and philosophers still speak of the filling of the “God-shaped hole” in the heart of man, just as even atheistic physicists are compelled to seek the “God particle” that makes the existence of matter possible. There is a saying often misattributed to G. K. Chesterton: “When man stops believing in God, he does not believe in nothing. He will believe in anything.” This is borne out by the obsession with ideology, vague spiritualities and dubious science by those who have supposedly weaned themselves off the pursuit of God. Man will always pursue God, even in his godlessness. Where they refuse to seek God, they will seek a simulacrum of Him. After all, nobody in the dark will fail to seek light. Therefore, the pursuit of God is essential in any study of man.
Article 3: Whether the Humanities are a Study of the Inner Life.
Objection 1. The inner life of man is completely within man. There is no way to confirm or replicate an inner life, and therefore no way to study the inner life. The Humanities cannot be the study of the inner life.
Objection 2. Furthermore, the Humanities study the products, constructs and concerns of man. The subjects are all concrete, documented and verifiable. The inner life is not. Therefore, the Humanities cannot be the study of the inner life of man.
Objection 3. Furthermore, the inner life of man, being subjective and varying from person to person, is not worthy of study. One cannot account for taste. Therefore, the inner life cannot be the object of study of the Humanities.
On the contrary, the inner life can, in a sense, be studied through the Humanities. The Humanities examine a range of human expression stemming from the inner life, and these expressions give the Humanities a unique glimpse into the inner life of man.
The Humanities, the study of human products, constructs and concerns, examine the products of the inner life in order to understand the inner life. It is analogous to the medical experiments on human blood and human fecal matter to understand what is going on inside the human body. The old saying that a man can only be judged by his deeds comes to mind. The inner life may be closed off to outside observation, but one can still compare the resulting expressions. Furthermore, these human expressions tell us more about man as a whole than the study of his external parts. Here is where the analogy with human blood and fecal matter end. While one can observe through a variety of instruments what can be confirmed in the blood, the products of man’s inner life offer a look into a place where no instrument can go.
Reply to Objection 1. The inner life cannot be replicated, but it can manifest itself in the works of man. The inner life of man stamps its face in nature, from the use of stone to build cathedrals to the defining of a country’s borders through imaginary lines that run through rivers and mountains. One can study the inner life by engaging its externalized expressions.
Reply to Objection 2. The subjects of the Humanities are concrete, documented and verifiable, but that does not make them any less the work of men and the products of the inner lives of men. If any, the fact that these objects can be documented and verified lends credence to the notion that the inner life, inaccessible to any device made by man, can be studied by virtue of the fact man makes devices.
Reply to Objection 3. The Humanities engage a wide variety of human expression, but underneath the variety lies a degree of consistency. Take for example, the Philippine Revolution. While some factions preferred a violent separation, and others preferred a more orderly, gradual separation, they all wanted the same thing; eventual independence. This consistency and the variety it generates are both possible objects of study, and both reflect on the inner life of the men participating in historical events. This can be seen, not just in history, but in the other disciplines of the Humanities. Literature and Art are rife with different varieties of human expression desiring to express the same thing. It is not taste that is being studied, but the very nature of expression itself.
Article 4: Whether the Inner Life is the Pursuit of God.
Objection 1. The inner life of man manifests itself in beliefs. One possible belief is the belief in the non-existence of God. If belief in the non-existence of God is possible, then the pursuit of God cannot be the goal of the inner life, as the inner life can decidedly move away from God.
Objection 2. Furthermore, man desires to know. Knowing entails a union between the inner life of man and the inner structure of the object of his knowing. God is unknowable, and what is unknowable cannot be the pursuit of the inner life of man, which is oriented toward what can be known.
Objection 3. Furthermore, if the inner life of man resonates best with the inner lives of other men, then it cannot resonate with God, who is beyond man. Therefore, the inner life is not inclined to pursue God.
On the contrary, the inner life of man is in constant pursuit of God. The inner life of man is constant pursuit of something greater beyond itself, and the greatest of these is God.
The inner life of man is constantly reaching out. As it is embodied, this “reaching out” takes the form of bodily expression, as it is only in physical expression that one inner life can communicate with the other. Sometimes, it is a gesture, or a word, or a great work, but whatever form it takes, the inner life of man is compelled to go beyond itself. One might point to a hermit, whose inner life seems quite content to remain in itself. However, rare is the hermit who does not commune with an Other, be it God, or Nature, or whatever substitute for God he might find compelling. The inner life is a paradox, for it feels itself more fully the more it reaches beyond itself. A creature that is content within itself would not have dominated the world in the way man has for such a creature would have no desire beyond existing and sustaining itself within itself. It takes a restless inner life to reach out and stamp its face in nature.
Reply to Objection 1. The belief in the non-existence of God is not the same as not pursuing God. People who express a disbelief in God are compelled to find something in God’s place, be it ideology, philosophy or even the idealized Self. The inner life of man is never without the pursuit of God; in fact, this is its utmost desire, as evidenced by the great convulsions of faith in abstract things perpetuated by people who supposedly did not believe in God, from Communism to environmental activism. Those who cannot pursue God will pursue a god, further proving that the inner life of man is inherently oriented to seeking God.
Reply to Objection 2. God is not completely unknowable. Revelation and doctrine are evidence that God can be known, though not completely. However, despite the lack of complete “knowability”, the inner life of man is still drawn to God. If one looks at the devout, God is loved not because He is completely known, but because what little is known already compels them to love God. The lack of complete “knowability” has not been a barrier for the inner life’s desire for union with God. Either the desire will satisfy itself on a lesser god, or it will continue gnawing at man to continue striving for greater union, even if it can only be achieved when all of man’s life is spent.
Reply to Objection 3. The inner life of man does prefer union with another inner life generally equal to it over union with something lesser. However, the inner life of man prefers union with something greater. Take for example, how lovers often idealize or “see what is best” in the other who is loved. The inner life of either lover is equal to the other, rife with both the good and the evil. The fact that one inner life, in its union, prefers to know the good in the other inner life signifies that the inner life seeks something ultimately greater than the inner life rife with flaws and failings. And the only inner life that is such is that of God.
Article 5: Whether the Knowledge of Man is the Knowledge of the Inner Life.
Objection 1. The inner life varies among every individual. Since what flows in the inner life is not constant, it is unnecessary to the existence of man. Therefore, knowledge of the inner life does not lead to knowledge of man.
Objection 2. Furthermore, even if we take the knowledge of the inner life as part of the knowledge of man, it cannot be of greater significance than the knowledge of the outer life of man. The body of man and its natural processes determine much of what goes on in the inner life, and therefore knowledge of it must count as equal to, if not greater than, knowledge of the inner life when it comes to knowing man.
On the contrary, the knowledge of the inner life is the knowledge of man. The knowledge of the inner life tells more about man than knowledge of the outer life.
The inner life of man is where knowing, thinking and other acts that define man apart from the animal occur. It is in the possession of the inner life similar to that of man that we judge the humanity of something. One need only look at the Irish myth of St. Christopher. In the Irish version of his story, St. Christopher began as a “Doghead”, a creature that has the body of a man and the head of a dog. These “alien creatures”, according to the primitive ethnologies written by monks, are considered “human” because they displayed traits that may be ascribed to the possession of an inner life; the mastery over other beasts, the use of clothes, and other marks that show their need to imprint their faces in nature. As proof of this belief, the medieval Church recognized a Doghead named Christopher, who upon conversion gained the “normal” physical features of a man, as a Saint.
Reply to Objection 1. The individuality of man, which is a fact of man’s being human, entails that each man is, as a whole, unique and different from the other. It is in this difference that man’s common humanity is found. Therefore, the occurrence of similar inner lives in every man cannot be the measure of what is necessary in the life of man. In fact, to study what makes man a man is to study how these differences come about. This means that the study must recourse to the inner life.
Reply to Objection 2. The outer life is significant for an embodied inner life. However, while knowing proceeds from the outer life (senses) to the inner life, it is in the inner life of man that the possession of knowing makes a difference. While the outer life intrudes upon the inner life, it is the inner life that compels man to express himself as a human being. Therefore, that which makes man human can be found in the inner life.
Article 6: Whether the Knowledge of Man is the Knowledge of God.
Objection 1. God is not man. Therefore, the knowledge of men cannot lead to the knowledge of God. One cannot derive knowledge of the complex from the simple. Man does not have the traits of God, and therefore the knowledge of God cannot be derived from knowing man.
Objection 2. Furthermore, knowledge of God is knowledge of something beyond man, and therefore when one knows God, it will be beyond anything that can be said about man. Therefore, the knowledge of man cannot be derived from the knowledge of God.
Objection 3. Furthermore, the knowledge of man is knowledge about a multitude, while knowledge of God is knowledge about the most unitary of beings. The knowledge of the multitude is not knowledge of the one. Therefore, the knowledge of man cannot be the knowledge of God.
On the contrary, the knowledge of Man is not removed from the knowledge of God. To know Man, one must know God and vice versa.
According to Matthew 7: 16, “you will know them by their fruit”. As man is in the image of God, and the image of God known through the image of man, one must know God in order to know Man, and one must know Man in order to know God.
Reply to Objection 1. Knowledge of the complex can be derived from knowledge of the simple. Single cell organisms, the simplest of organisms, provided man with knowledge on the workings of more complex multi-cellular organisms. Man does not have the traits of God, but the traits of man give us a clue as to the nature of God. After all, one can say much about an inventor, for example, by the nature of his inventions.
Reply to Objection 2. Knowledge of God reveals something of God’s creation. To know that God is Love, for example, must imply something of the importance of love for human beings. Even where lesser gods are the norm, does not Odin say much about the Nordics, or Athena about the Greeks? The results of their pursuit of God say much about these peoples, just as knowledge of God says much about knowledge of Man. The knowledge of God, or knowing what one knows about God, can say much about man.
Reply to Objection 3. Knowledge of man is not just the knowledge of a multitude, but the knowledge of the common within the variety of that multitude. This common humanity, expressed in the common pursuit of the inner life of man for God, is a unitary that can be compared the ultimate unitary being in God.
Question 1: Whether the Inner Life is the Object of the Humanities.
Objection 1. The purpose of the Humanities is to form future scholars. The Humanities have achieved their proper end once they have prepared a scholar for future scholarly endeavors.
Objection 2. Furthermore, the goal of the Humanities is to know the process of human acts. The Humanities study the deeds and works of man. These are the products of human acts. To know how these human acts are carried out (i.e., How did Duke Wellington win Waterloo?) and the reasoning behind human acts is the end of the humanities.
Objection 3. Furthermore, the end of the Humanities is knowledge of itself. The Humanities have achieved their end if they can provide man with knowledge of its subjects, such as history, literature, etc.
On the contrary, the Humanities are oriented toward the study of the inner life of man. The study of the products, constructs and concerns of man are all done in light of trying to understand the inner life of man.
The inner life of man flows within man. However, man’s inner life is embodied, and this embodied nature leads man to wish to express through the body what is in the inner life. These expressions, be they novels, statues, paintings or historical choices, all reveal aspects of man’s inner life. The inner life is not revealed in a straightforward fashion, like the result of a scientific experiment. Take the painting, for example. When a person looks at a painting, one is struck by the beauty of the expression. When one delves into the techniques used to bring the painting about, it is not an interest in the techniques per se, but to see how the techniques contribute to the expression. In some cases, even the technique itself is part of the expression. Something resonates in the viewer, something that was part of the artist, and in this, the inner life is shared and expressed. It is the imprint of the inner life in all these works and acts that the Humanities is concerned with.
Reply to Objection 1. While the formation of future scholars is certainly a possible consequence of the use of the Humanities, it is not the direct end. Scholars and students may be put in the proper disposition to know when going through the Humanities, but this is an effect of the attempt to study the inner life of man, an inner life that they, too, possess.
Reply to Objection 2. Learning in the Humanities does not stop with the human product or the human act, but with the human being. Knowing the reason behind a historical act, or the meaning and rationale behind a painting, is not enough for the student of the Humanities. What must be sought, in the motivations and expressions of man, is the inner life reaching out beyond itself, resonating with other inner lives through the ages. It is not enough, for example, to learn that it was a threat to his kingdom that prompted Charles Martel to defy the Moors. One must also wonder at what this historical figure so loved and so hated, that he would risk the fate of his entire people on the outcome of one battle. The Humanities require that the scholar dig deeper.
Reply to Objection 3. While knowledge of the products and acts of man are a worthy end in themselves, the Humanities do not dwell on knowing the products and acts as things in themselves. The Humanities see these things as the consequence of man having an inner life. History, for example, has to contend with free will, and not the simple determinism of a chain of causes and effects. Literature has to contend, not just with the words, but with the metaphors. The Humanities seek to see past the appearance, and into the inner structure itself.
Article 2: Whether God is the End of the Humanities.
Objection 1. The Humanities study the things of man, not the things of God. By virtue of the very name “Humanities”, the subject in focus is man, not God. Therefore, the Humanities have nothing to do with God.
Objection 2. Furthermore, Theology is only a part of the Humanities. While some aspect of the Humanities touches on the subject of God, this is not the entirety of the Humanities. Therefore, God is a part, not the end, of the Humanities.
Objection 3. Furthermore, the Humanities is the study of man. Not all men believe in God. Therefore, no study of man can ever have God as its end.
On the contrary, the ultimate end of the Humanities is to seek God. The inner life ultimately seeks God, and can be understood best in that context. Since the Humanities seek to understand the inner life of man, the Humanities must be a seeking of God.
The goal of the inner life is knowledge. To know is to be in union with the inner structure of an object. However, not all inner structures of objects are equally desirable for union. The inner life ultimately seeks union with something greater than itself above union with objects lesser than itself. One need only look at human actions. The knowing of a loved one is more desirable than the knowing of an animal. The knowing of a pet animal is superior to the knowing of a chair. The knowing of God, the highest of beings, is the most desired end of an inner life that seeks union with something greater than itself. As St. Augustine once said, “the heart is restless until it rests in You, O Lord.”
Reply to Objection 1. The Humanities are focused, not on the things of man, on man himself. The things of man are considered as the expressions of his inner life; an inner life that is constantly seeking union with God. To know man is to know that which he seeks, just as to know art is to know the beauty of the expression.
Reply to Objection 2. While Theology is but one part of the Humanities, the seeking of God is not confined to Theology. While Theology deals with doctrines, dogma and revelation about the nature of God, it does not touch upon the ways by which man seeks God, which can say something about God not readily apparent in the study of revelation. Besides, there is a reason why Theology was once called the Queen of the Sciences. It was in Theology that scholars tried to make sense of every other attempt to seek God. However, this cannot be done in Theology alone. The other disciplines of the Humanities are necessary.
Reply to Objection 3. Even those who profess to believe that God does not exist still seek some vestige of God. Poets and philosophers still speak of the filling of the “God-shaped hole” in the heart of man, just as even atheistic physicists are compelled to seek the “God particle” that makes the existence of matter possible. There is a saying often misattributed to G. K. Chesterton: “When man stops believing in God, he does not believe in nothing. He will believe in anything.” This is borne out by the obsession with ideology, vague spiritualities and dubious science by those who have supposedly weaned themselves off the pursuit of God. Man will always pursue God, even in his godlessness. Where they refuse to seek God, they will seek a simulacrum of Him. After all, nobody in the dark will fail to seek light. Therefore, the pursuit of God is essential in any study of man.
Article 3: Whether the Humanities are a Study of the Inner Life.
Objection 1. The inner life of man is completely within man. There is no way to confirm or replicate an inner life, and therefore no way to study the inner life. The Humanities cannot be the study of the inner life.
Objection 2. Furthermore, the Humanities study the products, constructs and concerns of man. The subjects are all concrete, documented and verifiable. The inner life is not. Therefore, the Humanities cannot be the study of the inner life of man.
Objection 3. Furthermore, the inner life of man, being subjective and varying from person to person, is not worthy of study. One cannot account for taste. Therefore, the inner life cannot be the object of study of the Humanities.
On the contrary, the inner life can, in a sense, be studied through the Humanities. The Humanities examine a range of human expression stemming from the inner life, and these expressions give the Humanities a unique glimpse into the inner life of man.
The Humanities, the study of human products, constructs and concerns, examine the products of the inner life in order to understand the inner life. It is analogous to the medical experiments on human blood and human fecal matter to understand what is going on inside the human body. The old saying that a man can only be judged by his deeds comes to mind. The inner life may be closed off to outside observation, but one can still compare the resulting expressions. Furthermore, these human expressions tell us more about man as a whole than the study of his external parts. Here is where the analogy with human blood and fecal matter end. While one can observe through a variety of instruments what can be confirmed in the blood, the products of man’s inner life offer a look into a place where no instrument can go.
Reply to Objection 1. The inner life cannot be replicated, but it can manifest itself in the works of man. The inner life of man stamps its face in nature, from the use of stone to build cathedrals to the defining of a country’s borders through imaginary lines that run through rivers and mountains. One can study the inner life by engaging its externalized expressions.
Reply to Objection 2. The subjects of the Humanities are concrete, documented and verifiable, but that does not make them any less the work of men and the products of the inner lives of men. If any, the fact that these objects can be documented and verified lends credence to the notion that the inner life, inaccessible to any device made by man, can be studied by virtue of the fact man makes devices.
Reply to Objection 3. The Humanities engage a wide variety of human expression, but underneath the variety lies a degree of consistency. Take for example, the Philippine Revolution. While some factions preferred a violent separation, and others preferred a more orderly, gradual separation, they all wanted the same thing; eventual independence. This consistency and the variety it generates are both possible objects of study, and both reflect on the inner life of the men participating in historical events. This can be seen, not just in history, but in the other disciplines of the Humanities. Literature and Art are rife with different varieties of human expression desiring to express the same thing. It is not taste that is being studied, but the very nature of expression itself.
Article 4: Whether the Inner Life is the Pursuit of God.
Objection 1. The inner life of man manifests itself in beliefs. One possible belief is the belief in the non-existence of God. If belief in the non-existence of God is possible, then the pursuit of God cannot be the goal of the inner life, as the inner life can decidedly move away from God.
Objection 2. Furthermore, man desires to know. Knowing entails a union between the inner life of man and the inner structure of the object of his knowing. God is unknowable, and what is unknowable cannot be the pursuit of the inner life of man, which is oriented toward what can be known.
Objection 3. Furthermore, if the inner life of man resonates best with the inner lives of other men, then it cannot resonate with God, who is beyond man. Therefore, the inner life is not inclined to pursue God.
On the contrary, the inner life of man is in constant pursuit of God. The inner life of man is constant pursuit of something greater beyond itself, and the greatest of these is God.
The inner life of man is constantly reaching out. As it is embodied, this “reaching out” takes the form of bodily expression, as it is only in physical expression that one inner life can communicate with the other. Sometimes, it is a gesture, or a word, or a great work, but whatever form it takes, the inner life of man is compelled to go beyond itself. One might point to a hermit, whose inner life seems quite content to remain in itself. However, rare is the hermit who does not commune with an Other, be it God, or Nature, or whatever substitute for God he might find compelling. The inner life is a paradox, for it feels itself more fully the more it reaches beyond itself. A creature that is content within itself would not have dominated the world in the way man has for such a creature would have no desire beyond existing and sustaining itself within itself. It takes a restless inner life to reach out and stamp its face in nature.
Reply to Objection 1. The belief in the non-existence of God is not the same as not pursuing God. People who express a disbelief in God are compelled to find something in God’s place, be it ideology, philosophy or even the idealized Self. The inner life of man is never without the pursuit of God; in fact, this is its utmost desire, as evidenced by the great convulsions of faith in abstract things perpetuated by people who supposedly did not believe in God, from Communism to environmental activism. Those who cannot pursue God will pursue a god, further proving that the inner life of man is inherently oriented to seeking God.
Reply to Objection 2. God is not completely unknowable. Revelation and doctrine are evidence that God can be known, though not completely. However, despite the lack of complete “knowability”, the inner life of man is still drawn to God. If one looks at the devout, God is loved not because He is completely known, but because what little is known already compels them to love God. The lack of complete “knowability” has not been a barrier for the inner life’s desire for union with God. Either the desire will satisfy itself on a lesser god, or it will continue gnawing at man to continue striving for greater union, even if it can only be achieved when all of man’s life is spent.
Reply to Objection 3. The inner life of man does prefer union with another inner life generally equal to it over union with something lesser. However, the inner life of man prefers union with something greater. Take for example, how lovers often idealize or “see what is best” in the other who is loved. The inner life of either lover is equal to the other, rife with both the good and the evil. The fact that one inner life, in its union, prefers to know the good in the other inner life signifies that the inner life seeks something ultimately greater than the inner life rife with flaws and failings. And the only inner life that is such is that of God.
Article 5: Whether the Knowledge of Man is the Knowledge of the Inner Life.
Objection 1. The inner life varies among every individual. Since what flows in the inner life is not constant, it is unnecessary to the existence of man. Therefore, knowledge of the inner life does not lead to knowledge of man.
Objection 2. Furthermore, even if we take the knowledge of the inner life as part of the knowledge of man, it cannot be of greater significance than the knowledge of the outer life of man. The body of man and its natural processes determine much of what goes on in the inner life, and therefore knowledge of it must count as equal to, if not greater than, knowledge of the inner life when it comes to knowing man.
On the contrary, the knowledge of the inner life is the knowledge of man. The knowledge of the inner life tells more about man than knowledge of the outer life.
The inner life of man is where knowing, thinking and other acts that define man apart from the animal occur. It is in the possession of the inner life similar to that of man that we judge the humanity of something. One need only look at the Irish myth of St. Christopher. In the Irish version of his story, St. Christopher began as a “Doghead”, a creature that has the body of a man and the head of a dog. These “alien creatures”, according to the primitive ethnologies written by monks, are considered “human” because they displayed traits that may be ascribed to the possession of an inner life; the mastery over other beasts, the use of clothes, and other marks that show their need to imprint their faces in nature. As proof of this belief, the medieval Church recognized a Doghead named Christopher, who upon conversion gained the “normal” physical features of a man, as a Saint.
Reply to Objection 1. The individuality of man, which is a fact of man’s being human, entails that each man is, as a whole, unique and different from the other. It is in this difference that man’s common humanity is found. Therefore, the occurrence of similar inner lives in every man cannot be the measure of what is necessary in the life of man. In fact, to study what makes man a man is to study how these differences come about. This means that the study must recourse to the inner life.
Reply to Objection 2. The outer life is significant for an embodied inner life. However, while knowing proceeds from the outer life (senses) to the inner life, it is in the inner life of man that the possession of knowing makes a difference. While the outer life intrudes upon the inner life, it is the inner life that compels man to express himself as a human being. Therefore, that which makes man human can be found in the inner life.
Article 6: Whether the Knowledge of Man is the Knowledge of God.
Objection 1. God is not man. Therefore, the knowledge of men cannot lead to the knowledge of God. One cannot derive knowledge of the complex from the simple. Man does not have the traits of God, and therefore the knowledge of God cannot be derived from knowing man.
Objection 2. Furthermore, knowledge of God is knowledge of something beyond man, and therefore when one knows God, it will be beyond anything that can be said about man. Therefore, the knowledge of man cannot be derived from the knowledge of God.
Objection 3. Furthermore, the knowledge of man is knowledge about a multitude, while knowledge of God is knowledge about the most unitary of beings. The knowledge of the multitude is not knowledge of the one. Therefore, the knowledge of man cannot be the knowledge of God.
On the contrary, the knowledge of Man is not removed from the knowledge of God. To know Man, one must know God and vice versa.
According to Matthew 7: 16, “you will know them by their fruit”. As man is in the image of God, and the image of God known through the image of man, one must know God in order to know Man, and one must know Man in order to know God.
Reply to Objection 1. Knowledge of the complex can be derived from knowledge of the simple. Single cell organisms, the simplest of organisms, provided man with knowledge on the workings of more complex multi-cellular organisms. Man does not have the traits of God, but the traits of man give us a clue as to the nature of God. After all, one can say much about an inventor, for example, by the nature of his inventions.
Reply to Objection 2. Knowledge of God reveals something of God’s creation. To know that God is Love, for example, must imply something of the importance of love for human beings. Even where lesser gods are the norm, does not Odin say much about the Nordics, or Athena about the Greeks? The results of their pursuit of God say much about these peoples, just as knowledge of God says much about knowledge of Man. The knowledge of God, or knowing what one knows about God, can say much about man.
Reply to Objection 3. Knowledge of man is not just the knowledge of a multitude, but the knowledge of the common within the variety of that multitude. This common humanity, expressed in the common pursuit of the inner life of man for God, is a unitary that can be compared the ultimate unitary being in God.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
3rd Place Essay, Advocates for Youth 5th Annual Essay-Writing Contest
Here's my piece, as promised.
You’ve laid eyes on that special someone, that other half of your soul, while eating in the cafeteria, or riding on the MRT. You muster up the courage to take the first step. You talk, you hang out, and slowly but surely, to the tune of soft montage music, you’re falling in love. But, your love is forbidden. Maybe your parents are strict, conservative, church-going dinosaurs who frown on you having “relations”. Maybe the two of you are of the same sex. Maybe you’re ugly, fat and lower middle-class while she’s pretty, sexy and rich. No matter, no taboo is going to hold back your love! Love conquers all! You defy the world, tell her that you love her, and for some inexplicable, scripted, movie-logic sort of reason, she says yes. Then, the two of you tumble into bed. Your personal journey of sexual self-discovery is complete. All in two hours.
Here is where those fickle story-tellers yell “cut!” They tell you that “love” is the end of all things, and that “love” has no purer ecstatic manifestation than sex. Here’s what they don’t tell you. Let’s assume that it all turned out like the movies. Your personal journey of sexual self-discovery ends after about three minutes of writhing around in the dark. (An hour longer if you’re lesbian.) Now comes the real world. You used no prophylactic last night, since you couldn’t really think of putting that blasted rubber on, what with all the heady romance of the moment. After all, there’s nothing romantic about treating sex like a surgical procedure or a crime scene investigation. Does she have an STD? (Much greater chance if “she” is a “he” and so are you.) She can’t! Love conquers all, right? Then, the pain and the itching start. If you’re a guy and your girl was as pure as driven snow, you’re still not out of the woods. Four months later, you get a call. Congratulations, you’re a dad! Nine months after the fact, you’re forced to become a man in a boy’s body. If you chose to have her abort, then you won’t become a man at all, you pussy.
But, what if you’re both girls? No STD’s, no pregnancy, no problems, right? Life’s still a fairytale. That is, until you finally realize why instances of domestic violence occur in higher rates among lesbians (and gays) than in the general population. You also discover that you’re liberal parents cry at night because you’re never going to give them grandkids. Way to make you and everybody around you happy, champ. After surviving all that, you get your little moral victory, until you discover your “life partner” in bed with your best girlfriend. It’s a small community.
Okay, so you might think that these are just the horror stories. Fine, let’s pretend that everything turned out alright. The two of you have a disease-free relationship. What now? The annoying habits movies leave out pile up, and sex becomes the only thing keeping you together. That’s a lot of pressure on a three-minute exercise (longer for lesbians). You try new things, but for how long? Once even auto-erotic asphyxiation gets old, what now? You break up.
The movies lie. It’s no fun watching your dreams crushed and your heart torn out. After your fairy-tale romance, you’ll feel like a used up condom, even if you did use condoms. You’ll be kicking yourself so hard for giving everything to that bitch (they’re all bitches after a break-up), and you didn’t even get a stupid T-shirt for it. What have you learned then?
Love is not sex. Love is not even an emotional high. Love is an act of the will. Just ask the old man caring for his Alzheimer’s wife. True love is when you are able to force yourself to love the person you wake up next to, even if she now looks like your Mom and the magic’s all gone. You can’t do that while as a care-free teenager, or as a brash career achiever still nursing his fragile ego. You have to grow up. Sex is part of that process. If you take the time to build a relationship before bumping uglies, you’ll find that it is much more satisfying because there is no pressure on the act at all. What will keep you together is not the sex, but each other. You’ll find that this is doubly-enhanced when the protection you put on is not some rubber CSI dick glove, but a wedding ring, for the ring protects by binding the two of you together and not by shielding you from each other with a thin rubber layer. The sex may eventually disappear, but love never gets old.
Sincerely,
Jaded Yuppie
________________
Now that I read it again, I realize that it does look like its been put together in just an hour. The ideas are not very organized. I think it only won based on style, and the need for a token voice for abstinence. The other two who came above me seemed to have essays that delved into the topic more closely. The winning one even had the theme in its title...
Anyway, I'm just glad it won something.
A Letter About the Day After
Dear Lonely Teenager,You’ve laid eyes on that special someone, that other half of your soul, while eating in the cafeteria, or riding on the MRT. You muster up the courage to take the first step. You talk, you hang out, and slowly but surely, to the tune of soft montage music, you’re falling in love. But, your love is forbidden. Maybe your parents are strict, conservative, church-going dinosaurs who frown on you having “relations”. Maybe the two of you are of the same sex. Maybe you’re ugly, fat and lower middle-class while she’s pretty, sexy and rich. No matter, no taboo is going to hold back your love! Love conquers all! You defy the world, tell her that you love her, and for some inexplicable, scripted, movie-logic sort of reason, she says yes. Then, the two of you tumble into bed. Your personal journey of sexual self-discovery is complete. All in two hours.
Here is where those fickle story-tellers yell “cut!” They tell you that “love” is the end of all things, and that “love” has no purer ecstatic manifestation than sex. Here’s what they don’t tell you. Let’s assume that it all turned out like the movies. Your personal journey of sexual self-discovery ends after about three minutes of writhing around in the dark. (An hour longer if you’re lesbian.) Now comes the real world. You used no prophylactic last night, since you couldn’t really think of putting that blasted rubber on, what with all the heady romance of the moment. After all, there’s nothing romantic about treating sex like a surgical procedure or a crime scene investigation. Does she have an STD? (Much greater chance if “she” is a “he” and so are you.) She can’t! Love conquers all, right? Then, the pain and the itching start. If you’re a guy and your girl was as pure as driven snow, you’re still not out of the woods. Four months later, you get a call. Congratulations, you’re a dad! Nine months after the fact, you’re forced to become a man in a boy’s body. If you chose to have her abort, then you won’t become a man at all, you pussy.
But, what if you’re both girls? No STD’s, no pregnancy, no problems, right? Life’s still a fairytale. That is, until you finally realize why instances of domestic violence occur in higher rates among lesbians (and gays) than in the general population. You also discover that you’re liberal parents cry at night because you’re never going to give them grandkids. Way to make you and everybody around you happy, champ. After surviving all that, you get your little moral victory, until you discover your “life partner” in bed with your best girlfriend. It’s a small community.
Okay, so you might think that these are just the horror stories. Fine, let’s pretend that everything turned out alright. The two of you have a disease-free relationship. What now? The annoying habits movies leave out pile up, and sex becomes the only thing keeping you together. That’s a lot of pressure on a three-minute exercise (longer for lesbians). You try new things, but for how long? Once even auto-erotic asphyxiation gets old, what now? You break up.
The movies lie. It’s no fun watching your dreams crushed and your heart torn out. After your fairy-tale romance, you’ll feel like a used up condom, even if you did use condoms. You’ll be kicking yourself so hard for giving everything to that bitch (they’re all bitches after a break-up), and you didn’t even get a stupid T-shirt for it. What have you learned then?
Love is not sex. Love is not even an emotional high. Love is an act of the will. Just ask the old man caring for his Alzheimer’s wife. True love is when you are able to force yourself to love the person you wake up next to, even if she now looks like your Mom and the magic’s all gone. You can’t do that while as a care-free teenager, or as a brash career achiever still nursing his fragile ego. You have to grow up. Sex is part of that process. If you take the time to build a relationship before bumping uglies, you’ll find that it is much more satisfying because there is no pressure on the act at all. What will keep you together is not the sex, but each other. You’ll find that this is doubly-enhanced when the protection you put on is not some rubber CSI dick glove, but a wedding ring, for the ring protects by binding the two of you together and not by shielding you from each other with a thin rubber layer. The sex may eventually disappear, but love never gets old.
Sincerely,
Jaded Yuppie
________________
Now that I read it again, I realize that it does look like its been put together in just an hour. The ideas are not very organized. I think it only won based on style, and the need for a token voice for abstinence. The other two who came above me seemed to have essays that delved into the topic more closely. The winning one even had the theme in its title...
Anyway, I'm just glad it won something.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
After the Heavy Stuff, Some Light-Hearted Bashing is in Order
Continuing on my Twilight Hate-a-thon (its a long week), I found this little ditty while trawling the inter webs.
To wit*:
50 Edward Cullen Traits Every Guy Should Have
List by wildcats13 posted 5 months ago
Ok. so I found this as a group on facebook and totally agree... I mean who wouldn't want a guy, or *vampire* like Edawrd? So here's the list.
1. Be inhumanly attractive
2. Drive 200 km/h
3. Save you from death
4. Have an amazing body
5. Be incredibly wealthy
6. Be too much of a gentlemen
7. Have an elegant way of walking
8. Be inhumanly strong
9. Crooked smile
10. Have an extended an sophisticated vocabulary
11. Be really smart
12. Good taste in music
13. Smell extraordinarily nice
14. Suddenly appear out of nowhere and kiss you passionatley
15. To tell you that you ARE beautiful, not that you look beautiful
16. To be able to enter your room without anyone noticing
17. To be willing to sacrifice his life for yours
18. Have eyes only for you, even if he is surrounded by attractive girls
19. To be ale to read minds except for yours
20. Quote Romeo ( Shakespear )
21. Stand in front of you in a protective way when you arein danger
22. Give you his jacket when you are cold
23. To stay young, gorgeous and sexy forever
24. Have morals
25. Love you for what you are inside, not for how you look
26. Be charming
27. Be jealous of your guys friends ( Jacob, Mike, etc... )
28. Sparkle in the sunlight
29. Write you a song
30. Wait for the ideal girl to come along
31. Be a virgin
32. Whisper nice things in your ear
33. Be able to make you beautiful and immortal
34. Tell you that the outside world hols no interest for him without you
35. Be comprehensive
36. Have a nice family
37. Play the piano
38. Kiss you in the middle of a fight
39. Always pay everything
40. Hug you behind your back
41. Have been pretty much single since 1901
42. Hold your face while he kisses you
43. Doesn't sleep at night, stays by your side taking care of you
44. Speaks no lies
45. Have a good taste in clothes
46. Have beautiful and expressive eyes
47. Own amazing cars
48. Be able to carry you with no effort
49. Tell you that you are the closest to heaven that he will ever get
50. Be willing to spend eternity by your side
Don't don't lie and say that's not what you all want!!! Oh, my favorites are 9, 28, 38, 43, 49. Omg, so romantic!!!!! <333
Bella and Edward FOREVER!!!
___________
And...gag.
Okay, I have two words for "wildcats13": Future Lesbian.
Look at all these traits! No guy will have 10 of them, much less 50. Heck, I don't think we even demand that much from women. Furthermore, many of these dumb-ass traits can only be good in the mind of a hormonal 14 year old girl whose eyes still gaze skywards for unicorns.
1. Be inhumanly attractive
Right. So, with Cullen / Pattinson in mind, the sex offender look is "inhumanly attractive".
2. Drive 200 km/h
I'll bet the state trooper doesn't find that so sexy. Nor will you when he rams his nightstick up your shitty boyfriend's ass.
4. Have an amazing body
5. Be incredibly wealthy
6. Be too much of a gentlemen
He must have the body of a rapist, the money of The Donald and the attitude of Patton Oswalt. In essence, he's Michael Cera of Arrested Development.
8. Be inhumanly strong
What the fuck? Kill your own damn cockroach, b****.
13. Smell extraordinarily nice
Oh, you mean smell like a girl? Must "he" also affect a crude macho walk too?
14. Suddenly appear out of nowhere and kiss you passionatley
Sexual harassment? Check.
15. To tell you that you ARE beautiful, not that you look beautiful
Amazing grasp of worn-out cliches? Check.
16. To be able to enter your room without anyone noticing
Is a stalker? Check.
18. Have eyes only for you, even if he is surrounded by attractive girls
Blind? Check.
19. To be ale to read minds except for yours
Retarded? Check.
20. Quote Romeo ( Shakespear )
Knows only the most hackneyed of Shakespeare's plays? You betcha.
23. To stay young, gorgeous and sexy forever
Be an amazingly well-preserved mummy for the sake of an aging woman with sagging boobs? Uhh...
25. Love you for what you are inside, not for how you look
Must love the empty abyss? Okay....
27. Be jealous of your guys friends ( Jacob, Mike, etc... )
Unreasonably possessive? Check.
28. Sparkle in the sunlight
F**k you...
30. Wait for the ideal girl to come along
Waiting for someone who is way better than you? Definitely.
33. Be able to make you beautiful and immortal
"Hi, I am Dr. Frankenstein, plastic surgeon!"
34. Tell you that the outside world hols no interest for him without you
Be an ersatz Bubble Boy? Umm...
38. Kiss you in the middle of a fight
Be the world's dumbest fighter....you sure?
40. Hug you behind your back
As opposed to hugging you when you know about it?
41. Have been pretty much single since 1901
Pathologically incapable of human interaction? Check.
42. Hold your face while he kisses you
This sounds kinda awkward. How will anybody kiss you with hands in the way?
45. Have a good taste in clothes
46. Have beautiful and expressive eyes
47. Own amazing cars
Be a male Barbie doll. Err...why don't you just date Barbie and save us all the trouble?
49. Tell you that you are the closest to heaven that he will ever get
Be half geek, half Marxist? Check.
50. Be willing to spend eternity by your side
Must be world's biggest loser? Check, check, check.
You know what, the vampire is officially dead. Vampires are no longer scary. I'll bet even Count Chocula can kick Edward Cullen's ass. They are now the gayest monsters in the party, who rhapsodize their cheeseburgers and sparkle like ten year old girls bathed in glitter.
The vampire has been officially castrated. Anne Rice has thankfully already left the genre. She bailed just in time. Stephanie Meyer just took a gigantic, 12-pound shit on the genre, and no amount of scrubbing is going to take away that smell. Vampires will now be nothing more than the sparkly beings of Mary Sue wish-fulfillment among really bad amateur writers like Meyer. At least, we can thank Meyer for putting a wooden stake through the heart of all the pretenses of vampire fiction. It'll all be just another sub-genre of chick lit now. Count Dracula is dead. Long live Count Dracula.
I'm going to go mourn by downloading some Dresden Files episodes, where vampires still had the dignity to be monsters.
______
*I retained all spelling errors and girly squealing.
To wit*:
50 Edward Cullen Traits Every Guy Should Have
List by wildcats13 posted 5 months ago
Ok. so I found this as a group on facebook and totally agree... I mean who wouldn't want a guy, or *vampire* like Edawrd? So here's the list.
1. Be inhumanly attractive
2. Drive 200 km/h
3. Save you from death
4. Have an amazing body
5. Be incredibly wealthy
6. Be too much of a gentlemen
7. Have an elegant way of walking
8. Be inhumanly strong
9. Crooked smile
10. Have an extended an sophisticated vocabulary
11. Be really smart
12. Good taste in music
13. Smell extraordinarily nice
14. Suddenly appear out of nowhere and kiss you passionatley
15. To tell you that you ARE beautiful, not that you look beautiful
16. To be able to enter your room without anyone noticing
17. To be willing to sacrifice his life for yours
18. Have eyes only for you, even if he is surrounded by attractive girls
19. To be ale to read minds except for yours
20. Quote Romeo ( Shakespear )
21. Stand in front of you in a protective way when you arein danger
22. Give you his jacket when you are cold
23. To stay young, gorgeous and sexy forever
24. Have morals
25. Love you for what you are inside, not for how you look
26. Be charming
27. Be jealous of your guys friends ( Jacob, Mike, etc... )
28. Sparkle in the sunlight
29. Write you a song
30. Wait for the ideal girl to come along
31. Be a virgin
32. Whisper nice things in your ear
33. Be able to make you beautiful and immortal
34. Tell you that the outside world hols no interest for him without you
35. Be comprehensive
36. Have a nice family
37. Play the piano
38. Kiss you in the middle of a fight
39. Always pay everything
40. Hug you behind your back
41. Have been pretty much single since 1901
42. Hold your face while he kisses you
43. Doesn't sleep at night, stays by your side taking care of you
44. Speaks no lies
45. Have a good taste in clothes
46. Have beautiful and expressive eyes
47. Own amazing cars
48. Be able to carry you with no effort
49. Tell you that you are the closest to heaven that he will ever get
50. Be willing to spend eternity by your side
Don't don't lie and say that's not what you all want!!! Oh, my favorites are 9, 28, 38, 43, 49. Omg, so romantic!!!!! <333
Bella and Edward FOREVER!!!
___________
And...gag.
Okay, I have two words for "wildcats13": Future Lesbian.
Look at all these traits! No guy will have 10 of them, much less 50. Heck, I don't think we even demand that much from women. Furthermore, many of these dumb-ass traits can only be good in the mind of a hormonal 14 year old girl whose eyes still gaze skywards for unicorns.
1. Be inhumanly attractive
Right. So, with Cullen / Pattinson in mind, the sex offender look is "inhumanly attractive".
2. Drive 200 km/h
I'll bet the state trooper doesn't find that so sexy. Nor will you when he rams his nightstick up your shitty boyfriend's ass.
4. Have an amazing body
5. Be incredibly wealthy
6. Be too much of a gentlemen
He must have the body of a rapist, the money of The Donald and the attitude of Patton Oswalt. In essence, he's Michael Cera of Arrested Development.
8. Be inhumanly strong
What the fuck? Kill your own damn cockroach, b****.
13. Smell extraordinarily nice
Oh, you mean smell like a girl? Must "he" also affect a crude macho walk too?
14. Suddenly appear out of nowhere and kiss you passionatley
Sexual harassment? Check.
15. To tell you that you ARE beautiful, not that you look beautiful
Amazing grasp of worn-out cliches? Check.
16. To be able to enter your room without anyone noticing
Is a stalker? Check.
18. Have eyes only for you, even if he is surrounded by attractive girls
Blind? Check.
19. To be ale to read minds except for yours
Retarded? Check.
20. Quote Romeo ( Shakespear )
Knows only the most hackneyed of Shakespeare's plays? You betcha.
23. To stay young, gorgeous and sexy forever
Be an amazingly well-preserved mummy for the sake of an aging woman with sagging boobs? Uhh...
25. Love you for what you are inside, not for how you look
Must love the empty abyss? Okay....
27. Be jealous of your guys friends ( Jacob, Mike, etc... )
Unreasonably possessive? Check.
28. Sparkle in the sunlight
F**k you...
30. Wait for the ideal girl to come along
Waiting for someone who is way better than you? Definitely.
33. Be able to make you beautiful and immortal
"Hi, I am Dr. Frankenstein, plastic surgeon!"
34. Tell you that the outside world hols no interest for him without you
Be an ersatz Bubble Boy? Umm...
38. Kiss you in the middle of a fight
Be the world's dumbest fighter....you sure?
40. Hug you behind your back
As opposed to hugging you when you know about it?
41. Have been pretty much single since 1901
Pathologically incapable of human interaction? Check.
42. Hold your face while he kisses you
This sounds kinda awkward. How will anybody kiss you with hands in the way?
45. Have a good taste in clothes
46. Have beautiful and expressive eyes
47. Own amazing cars
Be a male Barbie doll. Err...why don't you just date Barbie and save us all the trouble?
49. Tell you that you are the closest to heaven that he will ever get
Be half geek, half Marxist? Check.
50. Be willing to spend eternity by your side
Must be world's biggest loser? Check, check, check.
You know what, the vampire is officially dead. Vampires are no longer scary. I'll bet even Count Chocula can kick Edward Cullen's ass. They are now the gayest monsters in the party, who rhapsodize their cheeseburgers and sparkle like ten year old girls bathed in glitter.
The vampire has been officially castrated. Anne Rice has thankfully already left the genre. She bailed just in time. Stephanie Meyer just took a gigantic, 12-pound shit on the genre, and no amount of scrubbing is going to take away that smell. Vampires will now be nothing more than the sparkly beings of Mary Sue wish-fulfillment among really bad amateur writers like Meyer. At least, we can thank Meyer for putting a wooden stake through the heart of all the pretenses of vampire fiction. It'll all be just another sub-genre of chick lit now. Count Dracula is dead. Long live Count Dracula.
I'm going to go mourn by downloading some Dresden Files episodes, where vampires still had the dignity to be monsters.
______
*I retained all spelling errors and girly squealing.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
And Now, Writers...
I present the winners of the 2008 Bulwer-Lytton Bad Fiction-Writing Award. It is a contest wherein writers are asked to submit the worst possible opening sentences to imaginary novels.
Our proud winner:
Garrison Spik
Washington, D.C.
Our proud winner:
"Theirs was a New York love, a checkered taxi ride burning rubber, and like the city their passion was open 24/7, steam rising from their bodies like slick streets exhaling warm, moist, white breath through manhole covers stamped "Forged by DeLaney Bros., Piscataway, N.J."
Garrison Spik
Washington, D.C.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
We Cherish What is Ours Because We Bled For It...
Here is the inimitable John C. Wright on Robert Heinlein's "Tunnel in the Sky", a work he suspects is Heinlein's answer to "Lord of the Flies". I am instantly reminded of what it was about Heinlein's work that I loved. Sure, the guy was crap when harping on sexual morality, and was something of a Malthusian, but he does get something right when it comes to the exposition of "manly" virtues. From Mr. Wright's review:
"Heinlein, no matter how radical in other areas, was profoundly conservative about some things. For example, there is quite a striking scene when Rod returns from his expedition to find a better campsite. He is overdue by months, and when he returns, the camp is now a town. He has indeed found a much better site, and logic says they should uproot and move there. However, in a dramatic scene where the townsfolk hold off a stampede by carnivorous pests, the town mayor dies defending the wall of the town. And Rod, the new mayor, out of sheer stubbornness, sheer grit, refuses to uproot and move to better land. The reason? He and his have shed blood here, and they are too proud to be moved from it.
For good or ill, that is the essence of conservatism. We cherish what is ours because we bleed for it. It was sober and realistic of Heinlein to touch on this theme."
If only for this story and "Starship Troopers", I am grateful for the Dean of Science Fiction. And, I think I have an idea for my next contest entry....
"Heinlein, no matter how radical in other areas, was profoundly conservative about some things. For example, there is quite a striking scene when Rod returns from his expedition to find a better campsite. He is overdue by months, and when he returns, the camp is now a town. He has indeed found a much better site, and logic says they should uproot and move there. However, in a dramatic scene where the townsfolk hold off a stampede by carnivorous pests, the town mayor dies defending the wall of the town. And Rod, the new mayor, out of sheer stubbornness, sheer grit, refuses to uproot and move to better land. The reason? He and his have shed blood here, and they are too proud to be moved from it.
For good or ill, that is the essence of conservatism. We cherish what is ours because we bleed for it. It was sober and realistic of Heinlein to touch on this theme."
If only for this story and "Starship Troopers", I am grateful for the Dean of Science Fiction. And, I think I have an idea for my next contest entry....
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Losing a Piece of Historical Memory
The great Russian writer, Nobel Prize winner and author of "Gulag Archipelago", Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, has just died. He was 89.A man who wrote about conscience in the century that didn't have it has finally gone on to meet the author of conscience itself.
Here is his Harvard address.
And my favorite Solzhenitsyn speech, his Templeton Prize Address.
Finally, an interview in Der Spiegel.
Requiscat in Pace.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
The Successful Novelist
| Rating: | ★★★★★ |
| Category: | Books |
| Genre: | Professional & Technical |
| Author: | David Morrell |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)