Another quatrain bemoaning the end of Spring or Youth.
First Edition: Quatrain LXXII
Alas, that Spring should vanish with the Rose!
That Youth's sweet-scented Manuscript should close!
The Nightingale that in the Branches sang,
Ah, whence, and whither flown again, who knows!
Second Edition: Quatrain CIV
Yet Ah, that Spring should vanish with the Rose!
That Youth's sweet-scented Manuscript should close!
The Nightingale that in the branches sang,
Ah, whence, and whither flown again, who knows!
Fifth Edition: Quatrain XCVI
Yet Ah, that Spring should vanish with the Rose!
That Youth's sweet-scented manuscript should close!
The Nightingale that in the branches sang,
Ah, whence and whither flown again, who knows!
FitzGerald made only minimal changes to this quatrain over the five editions. The most significant change occurs in the first line when the introductory "Alas" in the first edition is replaced by "Yet Ah" in the second and fifth versions. The tone now changes from "Alas," a strong expression of sorrow, to "Yet Ah," which, to me anyway, is much weaker and more thoughtful, perhaps with a touch of ambivalence here.
Overall though, the theme is that of passing time, of changes which are inevitable, which echoes a number of the early quatrains that centered around the theme of the loss of past glories. Something that was present is now gone--Youth and the nightingale in this quatrain--but they are replaced by the Rose of summer.
The first line is a bit ambiguous; I first understood it as saying that Spring and the Rose vanish together. But, in Quatrain VIII (First Edition) we read, "And this first Summer Month that brings the Rose" which indicates that Spring vanishes with the appearance of the Rose, the sign of the "first Summer Month." Perhaps the Rose brings its own delights, not quite as pleasing as Youth and Spring though.
Time passes, and what it brings can never replace what has been lost--that Golden Age so often celebrated in many mythical histories.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Monday, August 26, 2013
Jerome Bixby's Man from Earth, an SF film
Jerome Bixby is probably best known for his short story, "It's a Good Life," which became a Twilight Zone episode in 1961, as well as scripts for four Star Trek episodes. In addition, he has written numerous short stories, both SF and westerns under several pseudonyms. But, for me, his best work is the script for The Man from Earth, which he finished several days before his death.
It has no special effects, no drooling bug-eyed monsters (BEMs), no space ships, no ray guns, no car chases, no exploding buildings, no scenes of hand-to-hand combat, and no gun battles. So, what does it have? It has a fascinating premise, interesting characters, and intelligent dialogue. It is directed by Richard Schenkman, who resisted the urge to "improve" it by turning it into an action-oriented film. The cast has no big names, which is an advantage for then the focus is on character and dialogue. They do a superb job.
The plot is simple: John Oldman, a history professor, has resigned his position and is leaving the area. His friends and colleagues are hurt, angry, and confused, for he hasn't told anyone about his decision, except for the university administration. He plans to leave without saying goodbye to his friends, some of whom he has known for ten years. They are hurt and angry because he is "sneaking" out of town without even saying goodbye and confused about his reasons. He is highly respected and considered to be the most obvious choice for appointed head of the department in a few years.
The film opens quietly: John is putting boxes into the back of his pickup. He is obviously getting ready to leave when several cars pull up. People get out carrying bags of takeout food and drinks. They have decided to have a going-away picnic, in spite of John's attempts to leave quietly. It is clear that they are upset, but he is a friend so they try to be civil.
They move into the house and take places in the large front room with a fireplace. This is where they will spend most of the film, talking about John's decision to leave. After considerable nagging, John reluctantly comes to a decision: he will explain.
He introduces the subject gradually, by suggesting that he may be writing a novel. He begins by asking his anthropologist friend if a man from the Pleistocene Era, which ended around 12000 BC, would be noticeable today. The anthropologist says that one wouldn't be any physically different from people today.
John explains that he's not talking about time travel or any sort of mechanism that would suddenly transport this person some 14,000 years into the future. His caveman simply lives day-by-day, after having reached the apparent physical age of mid 30s. He is 14,000 years old.
After having established this, he casually mentions, in response to a question about Columbus, that he had been with Columbus and that he, like many, did feel the world was round, but there was always that uncertainty. At this point the mood and tenor of the relationships changes drastically.
To be brief, John Oldman claims to be 14, 000 years old, and that's why he is leaving. He has found that it is best if he spends no more than a decade in any particular place because people begin to notice that he doesn't seem to age like everybody else. In fact, one of his colleagues, a few minutes earlier, had joking asked what his secret was--that he hadn't aged a bit since he arrived ten years ago.
There are three ways that one can respond to Oldman's claim: he is telling the truth, he is deceiving them for some reason, or he is seriously mentally disturbed. They cannot accept that he is telling the truth, so he must be lying or seriously delusional. Some are angry for they think he is trying to make fools of them while others are saddened by his obviously delusional state of mind.
These are good, honest, intelligent people who try to handle possibly the most ambiguous and perplexing situation they have ever encountered. They know, like, and respect John, but his claim is too outrageous. They try to poke holes in his story, but it's impossible. He makes no claim to be a super genius or possess super powers. He only knows what he learns from those about him. Everything he knows could have come out of a book or learned paper written by anthropologists or historians.
The film concentrates on the changing relationship between John and the others. He now realizes that he made a serious mistake in telling them his story for they can't accept it as true. Part of their problem may be that they can't accept that he will go on living while they age and eventually die. I wonder if I would sit there and ask myself--"Why him and not me?"
When I first sat down to watch the film, I had no expectations aside from the brief blurb stating that it was about a man who claimed to be 14,000 years old. I couldn't believe it when the film ended and I found I had sat there, transfixed for 90 minutes by a film that many would dismiss as being just one of those talky movies where nothing happens.
I have watched it now four times and finally purchased my own copy. It is one of only ten DVDs that I own, two of which are gifts. The other two SF DVDs that I own are Blade Runner and THX 1138. I will watch it again, probably several more times at that, for each time I discover something new, about the story, about the dialogue, about the characters.
It has no special effects, no drooling bug-eyed monsters (BEMs), no space ships, no ray guns, no car chases, no exploding buildings, no scenes of hand-to-hand combat, and no gun battles. So, what does it have? It has a fascinating premise, interesting characters, and intelligent dialogue. It is directed by Richard Schenkman, who resisted the urge to "improve" it by turning it into an action-oriented film. The cast has no big names, which is an advantage for then the focus is on character and dialogue. They do a superb job.
The plot is simple: John Oldman, a history professor, has resigned his position and is leaving the area. His friends and colleagues are hurt, angry, and confused, for he hasn't told anyone about his decision, except for the university administration. He plans to leave without saying goodbye to his friends, some of whom he has known for ten years. They are hurt and angry because he is "sneaking" out of town without even saying goodbye and confused about his reasons. He is highly respected and considered to be the most obvious choice for appointed head of the department in a few years.
The film opens quietly: John is putting boxes into the back of his pickup. He is obviously getting ready to leave when several cars pull up. People get out carrying bags of takeout food and drinks. They have decided to have a going-away picnic, in spite of John's attempts to leave quietly. It is clear that they are upset, but he is a friend so they try to be civil.
They move into the house and take places in the large front room with a fireplace. This is where they will spend most of the film, talking about John's decision to leave. After considerable nagging, John reluctantly comes to a decision: he will explain.
He introduces the subject gradually, by suggesting that he may be writing a novel. He begins by asking his anthropologist friend if a man from the Pleistocene Era, which ended around 12000 BC, would be noticeable today. The anthropologist says that one wouldn't be any physically different from people today.
John explains that he's not talking about time travel or any sort of mechanism that would suddenly transport this person some 14,000 years into the future. His caveman simply lives day-by-day, after having reached the apparent physical age of mid 30s. He is 14,000 years old.
After having established this, he casually mentions, in response to a question about Columbus, that he had been with Columbus and that he, like many, did feel the world was round, but there was always that uncertainty. At this point the mood and tenor of the relationships changes drastically.
To be brief, John Oldman claims to be 14, 000 years old, and that's why he is leaving. He has found that it is best if he spends no more than a decade in any particular place because people begin to notice that he doesn't seem to age like everybody else. In fact, one of his colleagues, a few minutes earlier, had joking asked what his secret was--that he hadn't aged a bit since he arrived ten years ago.
There are three ways that one can respond to Oldman's claim: he is telling the truth, he is deceiving them for some reason, or he is seriously mentally disturbed. They cannot accept that he is telling the truth, so he must be lying or seriously delusional. Some are angry for they think he is trying to make fools of them while others are saddened by his obviously delusional state of mind.
These are good, honest, intelligent people who try to handle possibly the most ambiguous and perplexing situation they have ever encountered. They know, like, and respect John, but his claim is too outrageous. They try to poke holes in his story, but it's impossible. He makes no claim to be a super genius or possess super powers. He only knows what he learns from those about him. Everything he knows could have come out of a book or learned paper written by anthropologists or historians.
The film concentrates on the changing relationship between John and the others. He now realizes that he made a serious mistake in telling them his story for they can't accept it as true. Part of their problem may be that they can't accept that he will go on living while they age and eventually die. I wonder if I would sit there and ask myself--"Why him and not me?"
When I first sat down to watch the film, I had no expectations aside from the brief blurb stating that it was about a man who claimed to be 14,000 years old. I couldn't believe it when the film ended and I found I had sat there, transfixed for 90 minutes by a film that many would dismiss as being just one of those talky movies where nothing happens.
I have watched it now four times and finally purchased my own copy. It is one of only ten DVDs that I own, two of which are gifts. The other two SF DVDs that I own are Blade Runner and THX 1138. I will watch it again, probably several more times at that, for each time I discover something new, about the story, about the dialogue, about the characters.
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Tao Te Ching: Chapter 33--Knowing Oneself
33.
He who knows others is learned;
He who knows himself is wise.
He who conquers others has power of muscles;
He who conquers himself is strong.
He who is contented is rich.
He who is determined has strength of will.
He who does not lose his center endures,
He who dies yet (his power) remains has long life.
The Wisdom of Laotse
trans. by Lin Yutang
This was also stressed by the Greeks. "Know thyself" is a Delphic maxim which apparently was carved into the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi. This chapter however goes beyond attaining knowledge and insists on action. To know oneself is not enough: one must take
what one knows about oneself and act upon it to shape one's behavior.
He who knows others is learned;
He who knows himself is wise.
He who conquers others has power of muscles;
He who conquers himself is strong.
He who is contented is rich.
He who is determined has strength of will.
He who does not lose his center endures,
He who dies yet (his power) remains has long life.
The Wisdom of Laotse
trans. by Lin Yutang
This was also stressed by the Greeks. "Know thyself" is a Delphic maxim which apparently was carved into the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi. This chapter however goes beyond attaining knowledge and insists on action. To know oneself is not enough: one must take
what one knows about oneself and act upon it to shape one's behavior.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Eric Hoffer: from Reflections on the Human Condition
Something to irritate almost everybody . . .
"#33 It is the malady of our age that the young are so busy teaching us that they have no time left to learn."
"#40 It is maintained that a society is free only when dissenting minorities have room to throw their weight around. As a matter of fact, a dissenting minority feels free only when it can impose its will on the majority: what it abominates most is the dissent of the majority."
"#41 There is a spoiled-brat quality about the self-consciously alienated. Life must have a meaning, history must have a goal, and everything must be in apple-pie order if they are to cease being alienated. Actually there is no alienation that a little power will not cure."
"42 The untalented are more at ease in a society that gives them valid alibis for not achieving than in one where opportunities are abundant. Fin an affluent society, the alienated who clamor for power are largely untalented people who cannot make use of the unprecedented opportunities for self-realization, and cannot escape the confrontation with an ineffectual self."
"43 We all have private ails. The troublemakers are they who need public cures for their private ails."
"44 Commitment becomes hysterical when those who have nothing to give advocate generosity, and those who have nothing to give up preach renunciation."
-- Eric Hoffer --
from Reflections on the Human Condition
"#33 It is the malady of our age that the young are so busy teaching us that they have no time left to learn."
"#40 It is maintained that a society is free only when dissenting minorities have room to throw their weight around. As a matter of fact, a dissenting minority feels free only when it can impose its will on the majority: what it abominates most is the dissent of the majority."
"#41 There is a spoiled-brat quality about the self-consciously alienated. Life must have a meaning, history must have a goal, and everything must be in apple-pie order if they are to cease being alienated. Actually there is no alienation that a little power will not cure."
"42 The untalented are more at ease in a society that gives them valid alibis for not achieving than in one where opportunities are abundant. Fin an affluent society, the alienated who clamor for power are largely untalented people who cannot make use of the unprecedented opportunities for self-realization, and cannot escape the confrontation with an ineffectual self."
"43 We all have private ails. The troublemakers are they who need public cures for their private ails."
"44 Commitment becomes hysterical when those who have nothing to give advocate generosity, and those who have nothing to give up preach renunciation."
-- Eric Hoffer --
from Reflections on the Human Condition
Saturday, August 10, 2013
Loren Eiseley: on stability
"Life is never fixed and stable. It is always mercurial, rolling and splitting, disappearing and re-emerging in a most unpredictable fashion. I never make a journey to a wood or a mountain without experiencing the temptation to explode a puffball in a new clearing or stopping to encourage some sleepy monster that is just cracking out of the earth mold. This is, of course, an irresponsible attitude, since I cannot tell what will come of it, but if the world hangs on such matters it may be well to act boldly and realize all immanent possibilities at once. Shake the seeds out of their pods, I say, launch the milkweed down, and set the lizards scuttling. We are in a creative universe. Let us then create. After all, man himself is the unlikely consequence of such forces. In the spring when a breath of wind sets the propellers of the maple seeds to whirring, I always say to myself hopefully, "After us the dragons.
To have dragons one must have change; that is the first principle of dragon lore. Otherwise everything becomes stale, commonplace, and observed. I suspect that it is this unimaginative boredom that leads to the vulgar comment that evolution may be all very well as a theory but you can never really see anything in the process of change. There is also the even more obtuse and less defensible attitude of those who speak of the world's creative energies as being exhausted, the animals small and showing no significant signs of advance. 'Everything is specialized in blind channels,' some observers contend. 'Life is now locked permanently in little roadside pools, or perching dolefully on television aerials.'
Such men never pause to think how they might have looked gasping fishily through mats of green algae in the Devonian swamps, but that is where the homunculus who preceded them had his abode. I have never lost a reverent and profound respect for swamps, even individually induced ones. I remember too well what, on occasion, has come out of them. Only a purblind concern with the present can so limit men's views, and it is my contention that sympathetic observer, even at this moment, can witness such marvels of transitional behavior, such hoverings between the then and the now, as to lay forever to rest the notion that evolution belongs somewhere the witch world of the past."
-- Loren Eiseley --
from The Night Country
Loren Eiseley is not the first to talk about unending change in the world: Taoists, Heraclitus, and Montaigne among many others had also noted this, but we forget and we need to be reminded of this regularly. In textbooks that discuss evolution, how many end the exposition with the present day and never go on to talk about future evolutionary modifications.
The same is true of human affairs. I remember when the Soviet Union collapsed and the Iron Curtain came down in the early '90s. The wise ones talked about peace, the end of the arms race, the reduction of military forces now that the Cold War had ended. The money spent on weaponry could now be put to peaceful uses to benefit humanity. And now. . .
To have dragons one must have change; that is the first principle of dragon lore. Otherwise everything becomes stale, commonplace, and observed. I suspect that it is this unimaginative boredom that leads to the vulgar comment that evolution may be all very well as a theory but you can never really see anything in the process of change. There is also the even more obtuse and less defensible attitude of those who speak of the world's creative energies as being exhausted, the animals small and showing no significant signs of advance. 'Everything is specialized in blind channels,' some observers contend. 'Life is now locked permanently in little roadside pools, or perching dolefully on television aerials.'
Such men never pause to think how they might have looked gasping fishily through mats of green algae in the Devonian swamps, but that is where the homunculus who preceded them had his abode. I have never lost a reverent and profound respect for swamps, even individually induced ones. I remember too well what, on occasion, has come out of them. Only a purblind concern with the present can so limit men's views, and it is my contention that sympathetic observer, even at this moment, can witness such marvels of transitional behavior, such hoverings between the then and the now, as to lay forever to rest the notion that evolution belongs somewhere the witch world of the past."
-- Loren Eiseley --
from The Night Country
Loren Eiseley is not the first to talk about unending change in the world: Taoists, Heraclitus, and Montaigne among many others had also noted this, but we forget and we need to be reminded of this regularly. In textbooks that discuss evolution, how many end the exposition with the present day and never go on to talk about future evolutionary modifications.
The same is true of human affairs. I remember when the Soviet Union collapsed and the Iron Curtain came down in the early '90s. The wise ones talked about peace, the end of the arms race, the reduction of military forces now that the Cold War had ended. The money spent on weaponry could now be put to peaceful uses to benefit humanity. And now. . .
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Wallace Stevens: The House was Quiet and the World Was Calm
The House Was Quiet and the World Was Calm
The house was quiet and the world was calm.
The reader became the book; and summer night
Was like the conscious being of the book.
The house was quiet and the world was calm.
The words were spoken as if there was no book,
Except that the reader leaned above the page,
Wanted to lean, wanted much most to be
The scholar to whom his book is true, to whom
The summer night is like a perfection of thought.
The house was quiet because it had to be.
The quiet was part of the evening, part of the mind:
The access of perfection to the page.
And the world was calm. The truth in a calm world,
In which there is no other meaning, itself
Is calm, itself is summer and night, itself
is he reader leaning late and reading there.
-- Wallace Stevens --
Another title for this poem could be "Meditations on Reading." Or, perhaps that could be a subtitle for I really don't want to give up the title for it fits the poem so well, for when I am reading, the house is quiet, regardless of how noisy it may really be, and the world is calm, in spite of the daily headlines. The title flows as do the words on the page.
This poem best describes the act of reading, as least as far as I am concerned. The flowing into a union of the reader, the writer, the ideas/words, and the night convey what I experience when I look back at a time when I was absorbed in a book. I am somewhere else and only partially me. To say I am only reading words on a page is true, but only partially true. It is not the whole truth. Emily Dickinson said some thing very similar when she wrote, "There is no frigate like a book/To take us Lands away."
Monday, July 29, 2013
The Rubaiyat: Quatrain LXXI
This is the fifth linked quatrain that focuses on wine. It refers back directly to LXIX in which he laments that his devotion to the grape has done his "Credit in Men's Eyes much wrong."
First Edition: Quatrain LXXI
And much as Wine has play'd the Infidel,
And robb'd me of my Robe of Honour--well,
I often wonder what the Vinters buy
One half so precious as the Goods they sell.
Second Edition: Quatrain CIII
And much as Wine has play'd the Infidel,
And robb'd me of my Robe of Honour--Well,
I often wonder what the Vinters buy
One-half so precious as the ware they sell.
Fifth Edition: Quatrain XCV
And much as Wine has play'd the Infidel,
And robb'd me of my Robe of Honour--Well,
I often wonder what the Vinters buy
One half so precious as the stuff they sell.
FitzGerald has made only minimal changes in this quatrain over the five editions. In the first three lines he has made only one minor change, that of capitalizing "Well" in the second line of the second and fifth editions. He added a hyphen to "One-half" in the second edition but had removed it by the fifth edition. He seemed to have difficulty in deciding just what to call what the Vinters sold over the various editions as he went from "Goods" to "ware" to "stuff." My preference is for "Goods," perhaps because it was the first one I read. "Ware" would be improved somewhat if he had made it "wares they sell." But, "stuff," no, that just doesn't work for me. The "stuff" they sell is wine, and he has praised it so much throughout the 70+ quatrains, that calling it "stuff" is derogatory and doesn't convey the significance it has had for him.
As I have mentioned previously, I have read several commentaries in which the author has tried to "save" Khayyam and place him within the mystic tradition which would preclude the use of alcohol. In some quatrains, I can see where references to the grape or wine could be interpreted as God's grace or divine inspiration, but there are numerous references which just don't seem to fit, and this quatrain and Quatrain LXIX are two of the many. It is hard to see that divine grace could have done his "Credit in Men's Eyes much wrong" or "robb'd [him] of [his] Robe of Honour."
Also, consider the first line of the stanza in which he says that "Wine has play'd the Infidel." Again, I don't see how this could be a reference to divine grace. If I find two interpretations and one can be seen to apply consistently while the other only seems partially valid, then I would definitely go with the one that seemed appropriate most often.
Like several other quatrains or couplets, I had come across the last two lines--
I often wonder what the Vinters buy
One half so precious as the Goods they sell.
long before I was even aware of the existence of The Rubaiyat. It was an epigraph or a quotation that came at the very beginning of a short story, an SF story to be precise. I do not remember the author, the title, or even the plot of the story, but those two lines have stayed with me for decades now.
First Edition: Quatrain LXXI
And much as Wine has play'd the Infidel,
And robb'd me of my Robe of Honour--well,
I often wonder what the Vinters buy
One half so precious as the Goods they sell.
Second Edition: Quatrain CIII
And much as Wine has play'd the Infidel,
And robb'd me of my Robe of Honour--Well,
I often wonder what the Vinters buy
One-half so precious as the ware they sell.
Fifth Edition: Quatrain XCV
And much as Wine has play'd the Infidel,
And robb'd me of my Robe of Honour--Well,
I often wonder what the Vinters buy
One half so precious as the stuff they sell.
FitzGerald has made only minimal changes in this quatrain over the five editions. In the first three lines he has made only one minor change, that of capitalizing "Well" in the second line of the second and fifth editions. He added a hyphen to "One-half" in the second edition but had removed it by the fifth edition. He seemed to have difficulty in deciding just what to call what the Vinters sold over the various editions as he went from "Goods" to "ware" to "stuff." My preference is for "Goods," perhaps because it was the first one I read. "Ware" would be improved somewhat if he had made it "wares they sell." But, "stuff," no, that just doesn't work for me. The "stuff" they sell is wine, and he has praised it so much throughout the 70+ quatrains, that calling it "stuff" is derogatory and doesn't convey the significance it has had for him.
As I have mentioned previously, I have read several commentaries in which the author has tried to "save" Khayyam and place him within the mystic tradition which would preclude the use of alcohol. In some quatrains, I can see where references to the grape or wine could be interpreted as God's grace or divine inspiration, but there are numerous references which just don't seem to fit, and this quatrain and Quatrain LXIX are two of the many. It is hard to see that divine grace could have done his "Credit in Men's Eyes much wrong" or "robb'd [him] of [his] Robe of Honour."
Also, consider the first line of the stanza in which he says that "Wine has play'd the Infidel." Again, I don't see how this could be a reference to divine grace. If I find two interpretations and one can be seen to apply consistently while the other only seems partially valid, then I would definitely go with the one that seemed appropriate most often.
Like several other quatrains or couplets, I had come across the last two lines--
I often wonder what the Vinters buy
One half so precious as the Goods they sell.
long before I was even aware of the existence of The Rubaiyat. It was an epigraph or a quotation that came at the very beginning of a short story, an SF story to be precise. I do not remember the author, the title, or even the plot of the story, but those two lines have stayed with me for decades now.
Friday, July 19, 2013
Iron Sky: an SF film?
The question in the title of this post really means that I wondered whether to call it a film or farce. It's brought to you by the same folks who produced Star Wreck, another SF satiric film that conflates Star Wars and Star Trek. I haven't watched it yet, but it's in my queue now. Iron Sky also targets two victims: various alien invasion films and films about hidden nests of Nazis plotting to resurface and take over the world. In other words, Moon Nazis.
There was some discussion many years ago as to who got the best German rocket scientists--the USA or the USSR. Now, the truth can be told. Neither! The best German rocket scientists fled to dark side of the moon along with many other high ranking Nazi officials in 1945. Since then, they have been working on a super weapon that will destroy the world.
The time is 2018 and the last problem with the doomsday weapon has been solved, mostly by accident. Two American astronauts have landed on the moon near the Nazi base (built in the shape of a swastika, of course). One of the astronauts had a mobile phone with him. When asked what it was, he told them it was a phone and a computer. The German Mad Scientist (who had a hairdo reminiscent of Einstein) laughed and said this was obviously a lie because it was so small. Real computers were room-sized. Curious anyway, the Mad Scientist inserts the phone to discover it can control the doomsday weapon, but the battery drained too quickly. The solution to the problem was obviously to go to Earth and get bigger and stronger batteries.
The Nazis go to Earth occasionally, but not too often because the crews and ships frequently don't return for some inexplicable reason. The Nazi ships look just like the flying saucers so prevalent in 1950s alien invasion movies. So, the UFO sightings were real: they weren't aliens--they were Nazis. Meanwhile, the Mad Scientist's young, beautiful, blonde daughter begins to fall in love with the American astronaut and helps him to escape. And so on and so forth.
The American President who plays a significant role is obviously Sarah Palin, even though she is not named: the long black hair, the glasses with the half-lens, and various verbal expressions. Her Oval Office is equipped with a cycle exercise machine and various stuffed trophy animals, including a polar bear. (The director in an interview says the bear was not planned, but his staff found it somewhere.)
Eventually the Nazis launch an attack on New York and the scenes are classic from 1950 films: crowds running and screaming, saucers destroying buildings, dogfights between fighter jets and saucers. The Nazi mother ships resemble dirigibles. However, various nations on Earth including the US possess armed space ships (all illegal of course, banned by the UN, and agreed to by all nations). When the US President scolds them for possessing these illegal ships, some point out that the US has one also. Her response is the that the US always lies--it is expected.
Keep an eye peeled for at least two little bits "borrowed" from Dr Strangelove--Peter Sellers' problem with his arm and the ending.
Lots of fun. It is best viewed by shutting down your brain, in the presence of like-minded friends, and with your favorite attitude adjustment substance at hand.
There was some discussion many years ago as to who got the best German rocket scientists--the USA or the USSR. Now, the truth can be told. Neither! The best German rocket scientists fled to dark side of the moon along with many other high ranking Nazi officials in 1945. Since then, they have been working on a super weapon that will destroy the world.
The time is 2018 and the last problem with the doomsday weapon has been solved, mostly by accident. Two American astronauts have landed on the moon near the Nazi base (built in the shape of a swastika, of course). One of the astronauts had a mobile phone with him. When asked what it was, he told them it was a phone and a computer. The German Mad Scientist (who had a hairdo reminiscent of Einstein) laughed and said this was obviously a lie because it was so small. Real computers were room-sized. Curious anyway, the Mad Scientist inserts the phone to discover it can control the doomsday weapon, but the battery drained too quickly. The solution to the problem was obviously to go to Earth and get bigger and stronger batteries.
The Nazis go to Earth occasionally, but not too often because the crews and ships frequently don't return for some inexplicable reason. The Nazi ships look just like the flying saucers so prevalent in 1950s alien invasion movies. So, the UFO sightings were real: they weren't aliens--they were Nazis. Meanwhile, the Mad Scientist's young, beautiful, blonde daughter begins to fall in love with the American astronaut and helps him to escape. And so on and so forth.
The American President who plays a significant role is obviously Sarah Palin, even though she is not named: the long black hair, the glasses with the half-lens, and various verbal expressions. Her Oval Office is equipped with a cycle exercise machine and various stuffed trophy animals, including a polar bear. (The director in an interview says the bear was not planned, but his staff found it somewhere.)
Eventually the Nazis launch an attack on New York and the scenes are classic from 1950 films: crowds running and screaming, saucers destroying buildings, dogfights between fighter jets and saucers. The Nazi mother ships resemble dirigibles. However, various nations on Earth including the US possess armed space ships (all illegal of course, banned by the UN, and agreed to by all nations). When the US President scolds them for possessing these illegal ships, some point out that the US has one also. Her response is the that the US always lies--it is expected.
Keep an eye peeled for at least two little bits "borrowed" from Dr Strangelove--Peter Sellers' problem with his arm and the ending.
Lots of fun. It is best viewed by shutting down your brain, in the presence of like-minded friends, and with your favorite attitude adjustment substance at hand.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Baltasar Gracian: on trivia
No. 121
"Do not make a business of the trivial. Just as some can make a tale out of anything, so others can make a business of everything: they always speak importantly, they take all things seriously, making of everything either a case, or a mystery. To convert petty annoyances into matters of importance, is to become seriously involved in nothing. It is to miss the point, to carry on the chest what has been cast from the shoulders. Many things which were something, by being left alone, became nothing; and others which were nothing, became much because messed into: in its beginnings it is easy to make an end of anything, but not so later; for many a time, the remedy itself brings out the disease: by no means the worst rule of life, to let things rest."
-- Baltasar Gracian --
The Art of Worldly Wisdom
Baltasar Gracian died in 1658, over 350 years ago. It's obvious that the human race hasn't changed much since his time. Much of which passes for news today is really the trivial blown out of proportion. What one person said thirty years ago becomes a focus of a media feeding frenzy.
But it's too simplistic to blame it on the media for they compete for the greatest audiences, and they know what people are interested in. If people weren't obsessed with trivia about other people's lives and perhaps mistakes, the media wouldn't focus on the irrelevant and insignificant.
"Just as some can make a tale out of anything, so others can make a business of everything: they always speak importantly, they take all things seriously, making of everything either a case, or a mystery."
Does the above quotation fits anybody you can think of on radio or TV today?
"Do not make a business of the trivial. Just as some can make a tale out of anything, so others can make a business of everything: they always speak importantly, they take all things seriously, making of everything either a case, or a mystery. To convert petty annoyances into matters of importance, is to become seriously involved in nothing. It is to miss the point, to carry on the chest what has been cast from the shoulders. Many things which were something, by being left alone, became nothing; and others which were nothing, became much because messed into: in its beginnings it is easy to make an end of anything, but not so later; for many a time, the remedy itself brings out the disease: by no means the worst rule of life, to let things rest."
-- Baltasar Gracian --
The Art of Worldly Wisdom
Baltasar Gracian died in 1658, over 350 years ago. It's obvious that the human race hasn't changed much since his time. Much of which passes for news today is really the trivial blown out of proportion. What one person said thirty years ago becomes a focus of a media feeding frenzy.
But it's too simplistic to blame it on the media for they compete for the greatest audiences, and they know what people are interested in. If people weren't obsessed with trivia about other people's lives and perhaps mistakes, the media wouldn't focus on the irrelevant and insignificant.
"Just as some can make a tale out of anything, so others can make a business of everything: they always speak importantly, they take all things seriously, making of everything either a case, or a mystery."
Does the above quotation fits anybody you can think of on radio or TV today?
Monday, July 8, 2013
Kenko: on instabiliity
No. 25
"The world is as unstable as the pools and shallows of Asuka River. Times change and things disappear; joy and sorrow come and go; a place that once thrived turns into an uninhabited moor; a house may remain unaltered, but its occupants will have changed. The peach and the damson trees in the garden say nothing--with whom is one to reminisce about the past? I feel this sense of impermanence even more sharply when I see the remains of a house which long ago, before I knew it, must have been imposing.
Whenever I pass by the ruins of the Kyogoku Palace, the Hojoji, and similar buildings, it moves me to think that the aspiration of the builders still lingers on, though the edifices themselves have changed completely. When Fujiwara no Michinaga erected so magnificent a temple, bestowing many estates for its support, he supposed that his descendants would always assist the emperor and serve as pillars of the state; could he have imagined that the temple would fall into such ruin, no matter what times lay ahead? The Great Gate and the Golden Hall were still standing until recent years, but the Gate burned during the Showa era, and the Golden Hall soon afterwards fell over. It still lies there, and no attempt has been made to restore it. Only the Muryoju Hall remains as a memento of the temple's former glory. Nine images of Amida Buddha, each sixteen fee tall, stand in a row, most awesomely. It is extremely moving to see, still plainly visible, the plaque inscribed by the Major Counselor Kozei and the door inscription by Kaneyuki. I understand that the Hokke Hall and perhaps other buildings are still standing. I wonder how much longer they too will last?
Some buildings that lack even such remains may survive merely as foundation stones, but no one knows for certain to what they once belonged. It is true in all things that it is a futile business attempting to plan for a future one will never know."
--Kenko --
from Essays in Idleness
trans. Donald Keene
I listen to others talk and am surprised to see how many people make plans for ten, fifteen, or even twenty years ahead. Inevitably they assume that nothing will change, that all will go then as it goes now. How many stock market crashes have occurred since the Great Crash in the '20s? But, once the stock market begins climbing up to record levels, investors forget that the reverse not only could happen, but has happened in the recent past and are, therefore, shocked and caught unprepared once the bottom drops out again.
The Taoists teach that change is inevitable: when times are bad, we should persist, for they shall soon improve, and when times are good, we should enjoy it, and prepare for a downturn.
"The world is as unstable as the pools and shallows of Asuka River. Times change and things disappear; joy and sorrow come and go; a place that once thrived turns into an uninhabited moor; a house may remain unaltered, but its occupants will have changed. The peach and the damson trees in the garden say nothing--with whom is one to reminisce about the past? I feel this sense of impermanence even more sharply when I see the remains of a house which long ago, before I knew it, must have been imposing.
Whenever I pass by the ruins of the Kyogoku Palace, the Hojoji, and similar buildings, it moves me to think that the aspiration of the builders still lingers on, though the edifices themselves have changed completely. When Fujiwara no Michinaga erected so magnificent a temple, bestowing many estates for its support, he supposed that his descendants would always assist the emperor and serve as pillars of the state; could he have imagined that the temple would fall into such ruin, no matter what times lay ahead? The Great Gate and the Golden Hall were still standing until recent years, but the Gate burned during the Showa era, and the Golden Hall soon afterwards fell over. It still lies there, and no attempt has been made to restore it. Only the Muryoju Hall remains as a memento of the temple's former glory. Nine images of Amida Buddha, each sixteen fee tall, stand in a row, most awesomely. It is extremely moving to see, still plainly visible, the plaque inscribed by the Major Counselor Kozei and the door inscription by Kaneyuki. I understand that the Hokke Hall and perhaps other buildings are still standing. I wonder how much longer they too will last?
Some buildings that lack even such remains may survive merely as foundation stones, but no one knows for certain to what they once belonged. It is true in all things that it is a futile business attempting to plan for a future one will never know."
--Kenko --
from Essays in Idleness
trans. Donald Keene
I listen to others talk and am surprised to see how many people make plans for ten, fifteen, or even twenty years ahead. Inevitably they assume that nothing will change, that all will go then as it goes now. How many stock market crashes have occurred since the Great Crash in the '20s? But, once the stock market begins climbing up to record levels, investors forget that the reverse not only could happen, but has happened in the recent past and are, therefore, shocked and caught unprepared once the bottom drops out again.
The Taoists teach that change is inevitable: when times are bad, we should persist, for they shall soon improve, and when times are good, we should enjoy it, and prepare for a downturn.
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Eric Hoffer: on desire
"7. Every intense desire is perhaps basically a desire to be different from what we are. Hence probably the imperiousness of the desire for fame, which is a desire for a self utterly unlike the real self."
"8. There is even in the most selfish passion a large element of self-abnegation. It is startling to realize that what we call extreme self-seeking is actually self-abnegation. The miser, health addict, glory chaser, and their like are not far behind the selfless in the excise of self-sacrifice.
Every extreme attitude is a flight from the self."
-- Eric Hoffer --
from The Passionate State of Mind
Desires or needs seem to signify a lack in ourselves or perhaps a feeling that all is not right with us, that something is missing, while those who lack desire are those who are content with who they are and with what they have. If so, then our consumer-oriented culture suggests that a majority of us are dissatisfied with ourselves, and advertising agencies use this to manipulate us into buying products that will make us happy by filling gaps or by changing ourselves into something we are not at this moment.
All advertisements directly or indirectly suggest that this product is something we must have if we are to be happy, and many go even a step further. In order to assuage any possible guilt at purchasing the product or service, which might be viewed as a luxury or perhaps self-indulgence, the ad tells us that we "deserve" this product or service, in other words, you should have this, whatever is may be.
What I wonder is how this ever came about? What is it that we lack that earlier generations seemed to have?
"8. There is even in the most selfish passion a large element of self-abnegation. It is startling to realize that what we call extreme self-seeking is actually self-abnegation. The miser, health addict, glory chaser, and their like are not far behind the selfless in the excise of self-sacrifice.
Every extreme attitude is a flight from the self."
-- Eric Hoffer --
from The Passionate State of Mind
Desires or needs seem to signify a lack in ourselves or perhaps a feeling that all is not right with us, that something is missing, while those who lack desire are those who are content with who they are and with what they have. If so, then our consumer-oriented culture suggests that a majority of us are dissatisfied with ourselves, and advertising agencies use this to manipulate us into buying products that will make us happy by filling gaps or by changing ourselves into something we are not at this moment.
All advertisements directly or indirectly suggest that this product is something we must have if we are to be happy, and many go even a step further. In order to assuage any possible guilt at purchasing the product or service, which might be viewed as a luxury or perhaps self-indulgence, the ad tells us that we "deserve" this product or service, in other words, you should have this, whatever is may be.
What I wonder is how this ever came about? What is it that we lack that earlier generations seemed to have?
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Thomas Mann's The Black Swan
Thomas Mann: The Black Swan
This short novel by Thomas Mann is one of his more unusual works, which really isn't saying much for an author who writes novels about a lengthy stay in a TB sanitarium or a composer's pact with the devil or the disintegration of a bourgeois family or the slow deterioration of an honored and respected scholar on vacation in Venice or about two young men in India who commit suicide over their love for a young woman who restores them by praying to the goddess and but gets their heads on the wrong bodies.
The Black Swan is described on the back cover as "the feminine counterpart" of Death in Venice. One could see that since it is the tale of an older woman who falls in love with a much younger man, perhaps half her age. But, the differences are much more striking than the rather obvious gender reversal.
Frau Rosalie von Tummler is fifty and "her health had been affected by certain critical organic phenomena of her time of life, the extinction of her physical womanhood, to whose spasmodic progress she responded with repeated psychological resistance."
Rosalie is a true romantic, a worshiper of Nature, in most of her forms. Upon seeing a gorge covered with blossoms, she exclaims to her daughter, Anna, "Child, child, how wonderful! It's the breath of Nature--it is!--her sweet, living breath, sun-warmed an drenched with moisture, deliciously wafted to us from her breast. Let us enjoy it with reverence, for we too are her children." Because of her intense attachment to and focus on the physical aspects of Nature, Rosalie decries the contemporary interest of artists in the abstract and the intellectual. Anna, a painter, is one of the "new" painters and part of the work consists of a dialogue between Rosalie and Anna about the lack of interest Anna shows in the colors and shapes and sounds and odors of the natural world.
And herein lies the paradox, for it is Nature, Rosalie's divinity, that has decreed the physiological changes that she is now undergoing. And her view? "When it has ceased to be with us after the manner of women, we are no longer women at all, but only the dried-up husk of a woman, worn out, useless, cast out of nature. My dear child, it is very bitter . . . But we, take it all in all, are given just thirty-five year to be women in our life and our blood, to be complete human beings, and when we are fifty, we are superannuated, our capacity to breed expires, and, in Nature's eyes, we are nothing but old rubbish!"
Anna paradoxically disagrees: "How you talk, Mama, and how you revile and see to want to reject the dignity that falls to the elderly woman when she has fulfilled her life, and Nature, which you love after all, transforms her to a new, mellow condition, an honorable and more lovable condition, in which she still can give and be so much, both to her family and to those less close to her." Rosalie, the worshiper of Nature, bewails what Nature has done to her, while Anna, the more cerebral and intellectual who ignores Nature in its physical manifestations, celebrates what Nature does for women at the later stages of life.
It is in this state of mind that Rosalie meets Ken Keaton. He is much younger than her, as Tadzio is much younger than Doktor Aschenbach in Death in Venice, but there the similarity ends. While Tadzio is fourteen, still a child, Ken Keaton is in his early twenties. He is, or was, in fact, an American soldier who had come over with the American Expeditionary Forces in WWI. He had been wounded, and after his release, he decided to take his discharge in Europe. He supported himself by teaching English.
It was in this capacity that Rosalie met him. Eduard, Rosalie's son, is studying to be an engineer and feels he must learn English because he wanted "to go to England for further study or perhaps straight to the El Dorado of technology, the United States." He persuades Rosalie to pay for English lessons with Keaton.
Keaton comes three times a week and eventually becomes almost part of the family. His presence at dinner following the lessons becomes a normal part of the von Tummler routine, and Rosalie soon becomes infatuated with him. She does nothing though because she feels that she is no longer a woman and therefore Keaton would reject any overtures on her part, even though she is fairly certain he is having an affair with one of the women in her circle.
It is at this point that the "miracle" happens. Rosalie greets Anna with the news: "Congratulate me, darling, there is reason of it! I am a woman again, a whole human being again, a functioning female, I can feel worth of the youthful manhood that has bewitched me, and no longer need lower my eyes before it with a feeling of impotence. The rod of life with which it struck me has reached not only my soul alone but my body too and has made it a flowing fountain again. Kiss me, my darling child, call me blessed, as blessed I am, and, with me, praise the miraculous power of great, beneficent Nature!"
But, she is mistaken. Nature, her divinity, has played a cruel trick on her. Ironically she unknowingly prefigures her own condition when she walks in the Palace Gardens with Anna one day in February when she speaks of the early blooming crocuses: "Isn't it remarkable. . . how much they resemble the autumn colchicum? It's practically the same flower! End and beginning--one could mistake them for each other, they are so alike--one could think one was back in autumn in the presence of a crocus, and believe in spring when one saw the last flower of the year."
Rosalie believes that Nature has restored her womanhood, but the sign she greets so happily is really a death sentence.
This short novel by Thomas Mann is one of his more unusual works, which really isn't saying much for an author who writes novels about a lengthy stay in a TB sanitarium or a composer's pact with the devil or the disintegration of a bourgeois family or the slow deterioration of an honored and respected scholar on vacation in Venice or about two young men in India who commit suicide over their love for a young woman who restores them by praying to the goddess and but gets their heads on the wrong bodies.
The Black Swan is described on the back cover as "the feminine counterpart" of Death in Venice. One could see that since it is the tale of an older woman who falls in love with a much younger man, perhaps half her age. But, the differences are much more striking than the rather obvious gender reversal.
Frau Rosalie von Tummler is fifty and "her health had been affected by certain critical organic phenomena of her time of life, the extinction of her physical womanhood, to whose spasmodic progress she responded with repeated psychological resistance."
Rosalie is a true romantic, a worshiper of Nature, in most of her forms. Upon seeing a gorge covered with blossoms, she exclaims to her daughter, Anna, "Child, child, how wonderful! It's the breath of Nature--it is!--her sweet, living breath, sun-warmed an drenched with moisture, deliciously wafted to us from her breast. Let us enjoy it with reverence, for we too are her children." Because of her intense attachment to and focus on the physical aspects of Nature, Rosalie decries the contemporary interest of artists in the abstract and the intellectual. Anna, a painter, is one of the "new" painters and part of the work consists of a dialogue between Rosalie and Anna about the lack of interest Anna shows in the colors and shapes and sounds and odors of the natural world.
And herein lies the paradox, for it is Nature, Rosalie's divinity, that has decreed the physiological changes that she is now undergoing. And her view? "When it has ceased to be with us after the manner of women, we are no longer women at all, but only the dried-up husk of a woman, worn out, useless, cast out of nature. My dear child, it is very bitter . . . But we, take it all in all, are given just thirty-five year to be women in our life and our blood, to be complete human beings, and when we are fifty, we are superannuated, our capacity to breed expires, and, in Nature's eyes, we are nothing but old rubbish!"
Anna paradoxically disagrees: "How you talk, Mama, and how you revile and see to want to reject the dignity that falls to the elderly woman when she has fulfilled her life, and Nature, which you love after all, transforms her to a new, mellow condition, an honorable and more lovable condition, in which she still can give and be so much, both to her family and to those less close to her." Rosalie, the worshiper of Nature, bewails what Nature has done to her, while Anna, the more cerebral and intellectual who ignores Nature in its physical manifestations, celebrates what Nature does for women at the later stages of life.
It is in this state of mind that Rosalie meets Ken Keaton. He is much younger than her, as Tadzio is much younger than Doktor Aschenbach in Death in Venice, but there the similarity ends. While Tadzio is fourteen, still a child, Ken Keaton is in his early twenties. He is, or was, in fact, an American soldier who had come over with the American Expeditionary Forces in WWI. He had been wounded, and after his release, he decided to take his discharge in Europe. He supported himself by teaching English.
It was in this capacity that Rosalie met him. Eduard, Rosalie's son, is studying to be an engineer and feels he must learn English because he wanted "to go to England for further study or perhaps straight to the El Dorado of technology, the United States." He persuades Rosalie to pay for English lessons with Keaton.
Keaton comes three times a week and eventually becomes almost part of the family. His presence at dinner following the lessons becomes a normal part of the von Tummler routine, and Rosalie soon becomes infatuated with him. She does nothing though because she feels that she is no longer a woman and therefore Keaton would reject any overtures on her part, even though she is fairly certain he is having an affair with one of the women in her circle.
It is at this point that the "miracle" happens. Rosalie greets Anna with the news: "Congratulate me, darling, there is reason of it! I am a woman again, a whole human being again, a functioning female, I can feel worth of the youthful manhood that has bewitched me, and no longer need lower my eyes before it with a feeling of impotence. The rod of life with which it struck me has reached not only my soul alone but my body too and has made it a flowing fountain again. Kiss me, my darling child, call me blessed, as blessed I am, and, with me, praise the miraculous power of great, beneficent Nature!"
But, she is mistaken. Nature, her divinity, has played a cruel trick on her. Ironically she unknowingly prefigures her own condition when she walks in the Palace Gardens with Anna one day in February when she speaks of the early blooming crocuses: "Isn't it remarkable. . . how much they resemble the autumn colchicum? It's practically the same flower! End and beginning--one could mistake them for each other, they are so alike--one could think one was back in autumn in the presence of a crocus, and believe in spring when one saw the last flower of the year."
Rosalie believes that Nature has restored her womanhood, but the sign she greets so happily is really a death sentence.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam: Quatrain LXX
This quatrain is a classic example of rationalization. He has promised to give up wine, but now second thoughts appear--a very common occurrence to any of us who has ever made a vow to give up something.
First Edition: Quatrain LXX
Indeed, indeed, Repentance oft before
I swore--but was I sober when I swore?
And then and then came Spring, and Rose-in-hand
My thread-bare Penitence apieces tore.
Second Edition: Quatrain CII
Indeed, indeed, Repentance oft before
I swore--but was I sober when I swore?
And then and then came Spring, and Rose-in-hand
My thread-bare Penitence apieces tore.
Fifth Edition: Quatrain XCIV
Indeed, indeed, Repentance oft before
I swore--but was I sober when I swore?
And then and then came Spring, and Rose-in-hand
My thread-bare Penitence apieces tore.
FitzGerald was obviously satisfied with this quatrain, for, as best as I can see, he made no changes in either the second or the final versions--a bit unusual for him.
The quatrain links back to Quatrain VII (First Edition).
Quatrain VII
Come, fill the Cup, and in the Fire of Spring
The Winter Garment of Repentance fling:
Both quatrains refer to garments and repentance and spring. It's intriguing to note that he refers to repentance in both quatrains as garments, something which can be easily donned or thrown off, as the mood fits. Repentance is not an integral part of him, or so it seems.
The mood is different in the two quatrains in that in VII it is one of defiance--one should fill the cup and fling the garment of repentance--while in LXX--"but was I sober when I swore?"--he seems not to defying but rationalizing, while he tears up the "contract."
One more curious element here is the repetition of words in the first three lines of the quatrain.
Indeed, indeed, Repentance oft before
I swore--but was I sober when I swore?
And then and then came Spring, and Rose-in-hand
My thread-bare Penitence apieces tore.
In the first line "Indeed" begins the line and is immediately repeated. The second line begins and ends with "I swore" and "I" actually appears three times in that line. The third line repeats the pattern of the first as it begins with a two word phrase--"And then"--which is immediately duplicated. Therefore, all three lines begin with a word or phrase which is repeated later in the line.
This is the second of three sequential quatrains that relate to his thoughts about drinking wine. In the previous quatrain, he laments the harm done to his reputation. In this quatrain, he suggests that he has tried to overcome this transgression, but always fails eventually, which leads inevitably to the following quatrain.
First Edition: Quatrain LXX
Indeed, indeed, Repentance oft before
I swore--but was I sober when I swore?
And then and then came Spring, and Rose-in-hand
My thread-bare Penitence apieces tore.
Second Edition: Quatrain CII
Indeed, indeed, Repentance oft before
I swore--but was I sober when I swore?
And then and then came Spring, and Rose-in-hand
My thread-bare Penitence apieces tore.
Fifth Edition: Quatrain XCIV
Indeed, indeed, Repentance oft before
I swore--but was I sober when I swore?
And then and then came Spring, and Rose-in-hand
My thread-bare Penitence apieces tore.
FitzGerald was obviously satisfied with this quatrain, for, as best as I can see, he made no changes in either the second or the final versions--a bit unusual for him.
The quatrain links back to Quatrain VII (First Edition).
Quatrain VII
Come, fill the Cup, and in the Fire of Spring
The Winter Garment of Repentance fling:
Both quatrains refer to garments and repentance and spring. It's intriguing to note that he refers to repentance in both quatrains as garments, something which can be easily donned or thrown off, as the mood fits. Repentance is not an integral part of him, or so it seems.
The mood is different in the two quatrains in that in VII it is one of defiance--one should fill the cup and fling the garment of repentance--while in LXX--"but was I sober when I swore?"--he seems not to defying but rationalizing, while he tears up the "contract."
One more curious element here is the repetition of words in the first three lines of the quatrain.
Indeed, indeed, Repentance oft before
I swore--but was I sober when I swore?
And then and then came Spring, and Rose-in-hand
My thread-bare Penitence apieces tore.
In the first line "Indeed" begins the line and is immediately repeated. The second line begins and ends with "I swore" and "I" actually appears three times in that line. The third line repeats the pattern of the first as it begins with a two word phrase--"And then"--which is immediately duplicated. Therefore, all three lines begin with a word or phrase which is repeated later in the line.
This is the second of three sequential quatrains that relate to his thoughts about drinking wine. In the previous quatrain, he laments the harm done to his reputation. In this quatrain, he suggests that he has tried to overcome this transgression, but always fails eventually, which leads inevitably to the following quatrain.
Monday, May 27, 2013
Simon Ortiz: May 27, 1941
Earth Woman
for Joy
This woman has been shaping
mountains
millions of years and still
her volcanoes erupt
with continuous mysteries.
How gentle
her movements, her hands,
soft wind,
warm rain,
the moving pain
of pleasure
we share.
-- Simon J. Ortiz --
I wonder about " How gentle/ her movements, her hands," though, when I consider volcanoes, which Ortiz mentions and earthquakes, which he doesn't. Could he be speaking of a human woman also?
from Woven Stone
for Joy
This woman has been shaping
mountains
millions of years and still
her volcanoes erupt
with continuous mysteries.
How gentle
her movements, her hands,
soft wind,
warm rain,
the moving pain
of pleasure
we share.
-- Simon J. Ortiz --
I wonder about " How gentle/ her movements, her hands," though, when I consider volcanoes, which Ortiz mentions and earthquakes, which he doesn't. Could he be speaking of a human woman also?
from Woven Stone
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
I'm back, mostly. . .
It's been awhile since my last post here. I guess it was an unplanned but necessary vacation. I expect to be back with a few posts shortly.
Right now I'm reading Joseph Conrad's "Captain Lingard" trilogy, something I didn't know existed until a fellow member of a discussion group brought it up. The three novels and their publication dates are
The Rescue (1920)
An Outcast of the Islands (1896)
Almayer's Folly (1895)
The titles are listed in chronological order, but the publishing order is the reverse. The first book published was Almayer's Folly, but it is the story of Capt. Lingard years after the events of The Rescue and An Outcast of the Islands..
I don't know if there are any short stories featuring Lingard, but if I do discover some, I will post it here.
Right now I'm reading Joseph Conrad's "Captain Lingard" trilogy, something I didn't know existed until a fellow member of a discussion group brought it up. The three novels and their publication dates are
The Rescue (1920)
An Outcast of the Islands (1896)
Almayer's Folly (1895)
The titles are listed in chronological order, but the publishing order is the reverse. The first book published was Almayer's Folly, but it is the story of Capt. Lingard years after the events of The Rescue and An Outcast of the Islands..
I don't know if there are any short stories featuring Lingard, but if I do discover some, I will post it here.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Three SF films
Warning: I will discuss endings and significant plot elements.
These are three films that I have just recently viewed. As you can see, I'm not exactly right on top of the film scene.
Total Recall (remake)
Source Code
Looper
- - - - - - - - - -
Total Recall
If you want exciting and impossible scenes of hovercar chases (see Star Wars) in rush hour traffic, as well as car crashes, this is for you. If exploding buildings and huge fireballs reaching for the skies are your thing, watch this film. If scenes of hand-to-hand combat and numerous firefights are your thing, don't miss this one.
However, if interesting characters with more than one dimension, plot development, and intelligent dialogue are your preferences, don't bother. Watch something else. The blurb on the DVD box says, "Better than the original." That's a joke. That had to be written with tongue firmly impressed into the cheek.
The bare plot line of the first film is there, buried under CGI special effects. Quaid bored with his job, goes to a place that will insert false memories of an exciting adventure, and finds out that his present persona is an overlay. The shootouts begin immediately at this point. He escapes and heads for home. He discovers that his loving wife, Lori ( played by Kate Beckinsale, has been assigned to watch for signs that he's recovering his memory, which apparently isn't his real memory either.
Lori (Beckinsale) is the only character who stands out in this film. She is remarkable as the embodiment of the old cliches: Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" and "the female of the species is more dangerous than the male." She wants Quaid dead. And, she's not Salome who persuades others to bring Quaid's head to her on a plate; she wants to be the one who puts it there.
The locations have been changed: it is no longer Earth and Mars, but a post-catastrophic Earth reduced to the British Federation and the Colony, which appears to be Australia and is still somewhat free of total domination by the Federation. What's holding Cohaagen, the dictator, back is the strong resistance movement. Cohaagen's secret weapon is Quaid who is a double/triple agent who is supposed to appear to be sympathetic to the resistance and eventually reveal the location of the leadership.
In the original version, Quaid learns of a device that will provide Mars with a breathable atmosphere, thus freeing the inhabitants from being forced to live in the domes because they couldn't go outside. The end of the film was the marvelous scene of the new atmosphere covering Mars and giving all the chance to escape the Earth-controlled domes.
Total Recall 2012 has been gifted with a far less imaginative ending. Cohaagen, once the resistence is eliminated or weakened, sends his syntha-soldiers, all wearing white, shiny, plastic-appearing armor (see Star Wars) to invade the colony and wipe out the inhabitants. He will replace them with people from the Federation, which is getting overcrowded.
The gimmick is the elevator, a shaft that burrows through the earth between the Federation and the Colony, which is used to transport people and goods between the two. As the invasion begins, Quaid learns of a secret code which, if inserted into the main communication center of the syntha-soldiers, will cause them to go inert, thus ending the invasion. But this certainly won't provide the thrilling climax to the film: just how exciting would be a scene where the syntha-soldiers simply stop functioning and come to a halt. So, we and Dennis Quaid learn that the code really doesn't exist, and Quaid is forced to resort to another method of stopping the invasion. Would you really be surprised to learn that it involves blowing something up?
Recommendation: see first and second paragraphs.
- - - - - - - - - -
Source Code
This is not a film about time travel but something to do with quantum physics. OK, but it sure looks like time travel to me. Anyway, Colter Stevens' mission is to locate a bomb placed on a commuter train heading for Chicago, disarm it, and identify the bomber. He needs to do this because the bomber has another "dirty bomb" which he plans to set off in Chicago. However, he has only eight minutes to do this because the gizmo can place him on the train only eight minutes before the bomb goes off. Fortunately for Colter, he has more than one chance to do this. In fact, he is forced to go back numerous times because the bomb keeps going off before he succeeds in defusing it.
Colter did not volunteer for this mission. He was an Air Force copter pilot in Afghanistan whose last memories are of being on a mission and reporting that he's getting heavy ground fire. Then, he suddenly finds himself on this commuter train, seated across from a very attractive young lady who seems to know him under a different name. He heads for the men's room to regain control and finds that he has a different face and probably a different body. The bomb explodes, and Colter finds himself in some sort of pod or control cabin, where he is able to communicate with an AF officer and a mad scientist, who finally explain just what is going on.
Now he is informed of his mission. He is being placed, thanks to a highly secret and experimental gadget, into the consciousness of a man who is about to die in eight minutes. That is the limitation of the gadget's functioning. Why he went the first time without any information is never explained, or at least I don't remember any explanation. I suspect this was done, not because of the plot, but simply to make the film more intriguing to viewers.
The film has two stories: one is Colter's attempts to locate the bomb and the bomber and the other is his growing attachment to Christina Warren (played by Michelle Monaghan), the young woman seated across from him, who knows him as Sean Fentress. What Colter doesn't know is that he is being kept alive artificially for the duration of the mission and will die at the end. Colter, however, guesses at his true situation and persuades his contact to run a little experiment of his own.
The director of Source Code is Duncan Jones, who also happens to be the director of another SF film that I enjoyed, Moon. Jones is unique today in that he is able to keep the special effects to a minimum and actually spends most of the film developing interesting characters and story line. I've seen only two of his films and in those two he follows a pattern. He focuses on only one SF element (cloning in Moon and the consciousness-transferring gizmo in Source Code). He then builds the story and characters around those elements, concentrating on character behavior and dialogue among the cast members and creating an interesting story line. Special effects are kept to a minimum: the focus is on the relationship among the characters as they are acted upon by the SF element.
Rating: I would give it a 3.75 on a 5 point scale. It's not a great SF film, but it's certainly a decent film about gizmos and people who try to survive with them or in spite of them.
- - - - - - - - - -
Looper
This is certainly the most complex film of the three. It is definitely and clearly a time-travel film. But, like Source Code, the SF element does not dominate the plot to the exclusion of an interesting story and some interesting characters. Time-travel in this film is one-way only-to the past. Someone who travels into the past must remain there. In addition, there appears to be a limit to the length of time one can travel into the past--30 years.
Loopers are assassins working for the mob, but with a twist. The story is set in 2044 in an US suffering an economic collapse. Time travel is invented in 2074, some thirty years later. It is immediately outlawed by the government, but criminal elements have gotten control of a time-travel machine. As it is extremely difficult to hide a body in 2074, the mob uses the device as a way of disposing of their enemies. A looper in 2044 gets a message telling him where to be and at what time. The victim appears, bound hand and foot, and with a bag over his head. The looper then immediately shoots him. The victim also has several silver bars strapped to his back, the looper's payment.
Occasionally a looper will find that his payment is a considerable number of gold bars. This happens when the looper "closes the loop." If a looper lives long enough, he will reach 2074. The mob now considers him a threat for he knows about time-travel, and they do not want the government to discover what they are doing. So, he is captured and sent back, with the gold bars, to his earlier self to be killed. At this point, the looper retires and decides how to spend the next 30 years.
Joe is a looper who lives a comfortable life and even manages to save a few bars of silver from each job. All goes well until his last assignment, which he doesn't immediately recognize as being his last one. He get a notice of time and place and is puzzled when the victim doesn't show up exactly on time. Then the victim appears, but Joe freezes when he is confronted by a man who is not tied nor does he have a bag over his head. Stunned, the victim turns and is shot in the back, but the gold bars protect him. He manages to knock Joe out and escape. The victim is Old Joe, himself 30 years in the future.
Young Joe realizes that he's in trouble and in a confrontation with several members of the looper gang is knocked out. This is followed by the most confusing scene in the film. Joe is knocked out and when he regains consciousness, he is back in the field, waiting for the victim to appear. This time the victim is bound and his head is covered with a bag. Joe kills him and discovers his payment is in gold bars, and he now realizes whom he had killed. This time all proceeds as expected, and Joe retires. We then follow Joe as he ages and turns in Old Joe, who is played by Bruce Willis.
We are now in 2074 and see the events that led to the first visit by Old Joe who survives. He has come back not just to survive but to kill the child who will grow up to be the Rainmaker, the mob leader who was responsible for the death of Old Joe's wife. The rest of the film is now split between Old Joe, as he searches for the child and Young Joe who is trying to stay out of the hands of the looper gang.
As in Source Code, the special effects are kept to a minimum, even in scenes involving time travel. The traveler suddenly appears without benefit of noise or color or transporter beams, etc.
Young Joe is portrayed as shallow and self-absorbed. He has no compunction about killing others, including his future self, whom he insists is not him at this present moment. Since killing his future self will benefit him, he is determined to finish him off. Old Joe, the Bruce Willis' character, is quite a different person, a reformed killer. He is determined to kill the child because he feels that will save his wife. He regrets the necessity, but the life of his wife is more important.
One of the most interesting scenes takes place in a diner when Young Joe and Old Joe confront each other. Several minutes are spent in just dialogue, most likely a scene that would have been cut by the director of Total Recall or by George Lucas, who lately has forgotten that the prime elements of a film are plot and characters. Special effects should enhance the film's story, not be the reason for it.
Three characters who stand out: Bruce Willis as Old Joe, Emily Blunt as Sara, the mother of the child who will become the Rainmaker, and Jeff Daniels as Abe, the head of the looper gang.
Rating: 3.75 on a 5 point scale. It probably would get a higher rating from someone who isn't bothered by the confusing scene I mentioned earlier, nor by the ending. Of course, this is time travel, so I guess I should just forget the anomalies and enjoy the film.
While Total Recall had at least three or four times and perhaps even five times the action scenes of the other two films combined, we must not forget that Bruce Willis is in Looper, and we can't have Bruce without at least one shootout. In fact, we see him in what I consider to be the Iconic Bruce Willis encounter. In this scene he enters the building where the looper gang hangs out and proceeds to stroll down the hallway, an automatic weapon in each hand, firing as he goes, taking them out, to the front, to the rear, on each side as he passes by the doors to various rooms. Willis clearly was enjoying himself in this scene, and it reminded me of an almost identical scene in Last Man Standing. .
Overall: I found Looper and Source Code far more interesting than Total Recall.
These are three films that I have just recently viewed. As you can see, I'm not exactly right on top of the film scene.
Total Recall (remake)
Source Code
Looper
- - - - - - - - - -
Total Recall
If you want exciting and impossible scenes of hovercar chases (see Star Wars) in rush hour traffic, as well as car crashes, this is for you. If exploding buildings and huge fireballs reaching for the skies are your thing, watch this film. If scenes of hand-to-hand combat and numerous firefights are your thing, don't miss this one.
However, if interesting characters with more than one dimension, plot development, and intelligent dialogue are your preferences, don't bother. Watch something else. The blurb on the DVD box says, "Better than the original." That's a joke. That had to be written with tongue firmly impressed into the cheek.
The bare plot line of the first film is there, buried under CGI special effects. Quaid bored with his job, goes to a place that will insert false memories of an exciting adventure, and finds out that his present persona is an overlay. The shootouts begin immediately at this point. He escapes and heads for home. He discovers that his loving wife, Lori ( played by Kate Beckinsale, has been assigned to watch for signs that he's recovering his memory, which apparently isn't his real memory either.
Lori (Beckinsale) is the only character who stands out in this film. She is remarkable as the embodiment of the old cliches: Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" and "the female of the species is more dangerous than the male." She wants Quaid dead. And, she's not Salome who persuades others to bring Quaid's head to her on a plate; she wants to be the one who puts it there.
The locations have been changed: it is no longer Earth and Mars, but a post-catastrophic Earth reduced to the British Federation and the Colony, which appears to be Australia and is still somewhat free of total domination by the Federation. What's holding Cohaagen, the dictator, back is the strong resistance movement. Cohaagen's secret weapon is Quaid who is a double/triple agent who is supposed to appear to be sympathetic to the resistance and eventually reveal the location of the leadership.
In the original version, Quaid learns of a device that will provide Mars with a breathable atmosphere, thus freeing the inhabitants from being forced to live in the domes because they couldn't go outside. The end of the film was the marvelous scene of the new atmosphere covering Mars and giving all the chance to escape the Earth-controlled domes.
Total Recall 2012 has been gifted with a far less imaginative ending. Cohaagen, once the resistence is eliminated or weakened, sends his syntha-soldiers, all wearing white, shiny, plastic-appearing armor (see Star Wars) to invade the colony and wipe out the inhabitants. He will replace them with people from the Federation, which is getting overcrowded.
The gimmick is the elevator, a shaft that burrows through the earth between the Federation and the Colony, which is used to transport people and goods between the two. As the invasion begins, Quaid learns of a secret code which, if inserted into the main communication center of the syntha-soldiers, will cause them to go inert, thus ending the invasion. But this certainly won't provide the thrilling climax to the film: just how exciting would be a scene where the syntha-soldiers simply stop functioning and come to a halt. So, we and Dennis Quaid learn that the code really doesn't exist, and Quaid is forced to resort to another method of stopping the invasion. Would you really be surprised to learn that it involves blowing something up?
Recommendation: see first and second paragraphs.
- - - - - - - - - -
Source Code
This is not a film about time travel but something to do with quantum physics. OK, but it sure looks like time travel to me. Anyway, Colter Stevens' mission is to locate a bomb placed on a commuter train heading for Chicago, disarm it, and identify the bomber. He needs to do this because the bomber has another "dirty bomb" which he plans to set off in Chicago. However, he has only eight minutes to do this because the gizmo can place him on the train only eight minutes before the bomb goes off. Fortunately for Colter, he has more than one chance to do this. In fact, he is forced to go back numerous times because the bomb keeps going off before he succeeds in defusing it.
Colter did not volunteer for this mission. He was an Air Force copter pilot in Afghanistan whose last memories are of being on a mission and reporting that he's getting heavy ground fire. Then, he suddenly finds himself on this commuter train, seated across from a very attractive young lady who seems to know him under a different name. He heads for the men's room to regain control and finds that he has a different face and probably a different body. The bomb explodes, and Colter finds himself in some sort of pod or control cabin, where he is able to communicate with an AF officer and a mad scientist, who finally explain just what is going on.
Now he is informed of his mission. He is being placed, thanks to a highly secret and experimental gadget, into the consciousness of a man who is about to die in eight minutes. That is the limitation of the gadget's functioning. Why he went the first time without any information is never explained, or at least I don't remember any explanation. I suspect this was done, not because of the plot, but simply to make the film more intriguing to viewers.
The film has two stories: one is Colter's attempts to locate the bomb and the bomber and the other is his growing attachment to Christina Warren (played by Michelle Monaghan), the young woman seated across from him, who knows him as Sean Fentress. What Colter doesn't know is that he is being kept alive artificially for the duration of the mission and will die at the end. Colter, however, guesses at his true situation and persuades his contact to run a little experiment of his own.
The director of Source Code is Duncan Jones, who also happens to be the director of another SF film that I enjoyed, Moon. Jones is unique today in that he is able to keep the special effects to a minimum and actually spends most of the film developing interesting characters and story line. I've seen only two of his films and in those two he follows a pattern. He focuses on only one SF element (cloning in Moon and the consciousness-transferring gizmo in Source Code). He then builds the story and characters around those elements, concentrating on character behavior and dialogue among the cast members and creating an interesting story line. Special effects are kept to a minimum: the focus is on the relationship among the characters as they are acted upon by the SF element.
Rating: I would give it a 3.75 on a 5 point scale. It's not a great SF film, but it's certainly a decent film about gizmos and people who try to survive with them or in spite of them.
- - - - - - - - - -
Looper
This is certainly the most complex film of the three. It is definitely and clearly a time-travel film. But, like Source Code, the SF element does not dominate the plot to the exclusion of an interesting story and some interesting characters. Time-travel in this film is one-way only-to the past. Someone who travels into the past must remain there. In addition, there appears to be a limit to the length of time one can travel into the past--30 years.
Loopers are assassins working for the mob, but with a twist. The story is set in 2044 in an US suffering an economic collapse. Time travel is invented in 2074, some thirty years later. It is immediately outlawed by the government, but criminal elements have gotten control of a time-travel machine. As it is extremely difficult to hide a body in 2074, the mob uses the device as a way of disposing of their enemies. A looper in 2044 gets a message telling him where to be and at what time. The victim appears, bound hand and foot, and with a bag over his head. The looper then immediately shoots him. The victim also has several silver bars strapped to his back, the looper's payment.
Occasionally a looper will find that his payment is a considerable number of gold bars. This happens when the looper "closes the loop." If a looper lives long enough, he will reach 2074. The mob now considers him a threat for he knows about time-travel, and they do not want the government to discover what they are doing. So, he is captured and sent back, with the gold bars, to his earlier self to be killed. At this point, the looper retires and decides how to spend the next 30 years.
Joe is a looper who lives a comfortable life and even manages to save a few bars of silver from each job. All goes well until his last assignment, which he doesn't immediately recognize as being his last one. He get a notice of time and place and is puzzled when the victim doesn't show up exactly on time. Then the victim appears, but Joe freezes when he is confronted by a man who is not tied nor does he have a bag over his head. Stunned, the victim turns and is shot in the back, but the gold bars protect him. He manages to knock Joe out and escape. The victim is Old Joe, himself 30 years in the future.
Young Joe realizes that he's in trouble and in a confrontation with several members of the looper gang is knocked out. This is followed by the most confusing scene in the film. Joe is knocked out and when he regains consciousness, he is back in the field, waiting for the victim to appear. This time the victim is bound and his head is covered with a bag. Joe kills him and discovers his payment is in gold bars, and he now realizes whom he had killed. This time all proceeds as expected, and Joe retires. We then follow Joe as he ages and turns in Old Joe, who is played by Bruce Willis.
We are now in 2074 and see the events that led to the first visit by Old Joe who survives. He has come back not just to survive but to kill the child who will grow up to be the Rainmaker, the mob leader who was responsible for the death of Old Joe's wife. The rest of the film is now split between Old Joe, as he searches for the child and Young Joe who is trying to stay out of the hands of the looper gang.
As in Source Code, the special effects are kept to a minimum, even in scenes involving time travel. The traveler suddenly appears without benefit of noise or color or transporter beams, etc.
Young Joe is portrayed as shallow and self-absorbed. He has no compunction about killing others, including his future self, whom he insists is not him at this present moment. Since killing his future self will benefit him, he is determined to finish him off. Old Joe, the Bruce Willis' character, is quite a different person, a reformed killer. He is determined to kill the child because he feels that will save his wife. He regrets the necessity, but the life of his wife is more important.
One of the most interesting scenes takes place in a diner when Young Joe and Old Joe confront each other. Several minutes are spent in just dialogue, most likely a scene that would have been cut by the director of Total Recall or by George Lucas, who lately has forgotten that the prime elements of a film are plot and characters. Special effects should enhance the film's story, not be the reason for it.
Three characters who stand out: Bruce Willis as Old Joe, Emily Blunt as Sara, the mother of the child who will become the Rainmaker, and Jeff Daniels as Abe, the head of the looper gang.
Rating: 3.75 on a 5 point scale. It probably would get a higher rating from someone who isn't bothered by the confusing scene I mentioned earlier, nor by the ending. Of course, this is time travel, so I guess I should just forget the anomalies and enjoy the film.
While Total Recall had at least three or four times and perhaps even five times the action scenes of the other two films combined, we must not forget that Bruce Willis is in Looper, and we can't have Bruce without at least one shootout. In fact, we see him in what I consider to be the Iconic Bruce Willis encounter. In this scene he enters the building where the looper gang hangs out and proceeds to stroll down the hallway, an automatic weapon in each hand, firing as he goes, taking them out, to the front, to the rear, on each side as he passes by the doors to various rooms. Willis clearly was enjoying himself in this scene, and it reminded me of an almost identical scene in Last Man Standing. .
Overall: I found Looper and Source Code far more interesting than Total Recall.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
The Rubaiyat: Quatrain LXIX
This is another quatrain that concerns itself with the grape, but in this one he wonders if perhaps he's made a mistake.
First Edition: Quatrain LXIX
Indeed the Idols I have loved so long
Have done my Credit in Men's Eye much wrong:
Have drown'd my Honour in a shallow Cup,
And sold my Reputation for a Song.
Second Edition: Quatrain CI
Indeed the Idols I have loved so long
Have done my credit in Men's eye much wrong:
Have drown'd my Glory in a shallow Cup
And sold my Reputation for a Song.
Fifth Edition: Quatrain XCIII
Indeed the Idols I have loved so long
Have done my credit in this World much wrong:
Have drown'd my Glory in a shallow Cup
And sold my Reputation for a Song.
FitzGerald made only minimal changes to this quatrain. In the first quatrain he states that he has "drown'd [his] Honour in a shallow Cup" while in the second and fifth versions, it is his "Glory" that he has drowned. Perhaps the difference here is that "Honour," as he sees it, is related to personal qualities such as integrity and honesty of which he has control while "Glory" comes from the outside, more related to one's external reputation that comes from others.
The other change occurs in the second line. In the first and second editions, those "Idols" have hurt him in "Men's Eye" while in the fifth the damage to his Credit now is in "the World." I like the change for "in this World" seems to flow much more smoothly than "in Men's Eye."
The reference to "shallow cup" and "drown'd" suggest again that wine is the theme here and not God's grace for several reasons. To suggest that he has been talking about God's grace throughout doesn't make sense when one considers the reference in the first line to those "the Idols I have loved so long." To refer to God's grace as an Idol seems blasphemous for Idols in both the Islamic and Christian traditions refer to false gods. It seems more likely that those Idols refer to the sensual pleasures here in this life for over-indulgence is certainly something that would ruin his reputation in contrast to following God's commandments which would do exactly the opposite.
This quatrain also follows the theme of the two previous quatrains which focus on death. In this quatrain the Poet/Narrator seems to regret his past behavior, wondering if he has been following false gods--a very common response among many people who suddenly realize that the end is near for them--a reconsideration of their past life and what they have made of it. Deathbed conversions and repentance are not unusual, after all.
First Edition: Quatrain LXIX
Indeed the Idols I have loved so long
Have done my Credit in Men's Eye much wrong:
Have drown'd my Honour in a shallow Cup,
And sold my Reputation for a Song.
Second Edition: Quatrain CI
Indeed the Idols I have loved so long
Have done my credit in Men's eye much wrong:
Have drown'd my Glory in a shallow Cup
And sold my Reputation for a Song.
Fifth Edition: Quatrain XCIII
Indeed the Idols I have loved so long
Have done my credit in this World much wrong:
Have drown'd my Glory in a shallow Cup
And sold my Reputation for a Song.
FitzGerald made only minimal changes to this quatrain. In the first quatrain he states that he has "drown'd [his] Honour in a shallow Cup" while in the second and fifth versions, it is his "Glory" that he has drowned. Perhaps the difference here is that "Honour," as he sees it, is related to personal qualities such as integrity and honesty of which he has control while "Glory" comes from the outside, more related to one's external reputation that comes from others.
The other change occurs in the second line. In the first and second editions, those "Idols" have hurt him in "Men's Eye" while in the fifth the damage to his Credit now is in "the World." I like the change for "in this World" seems to flow much more smoothly than "in Men's Eye."
The reference to "shallow cup" and "drown'd" suggest again that wine is the theme here and not God's grace for several reasons. To suggest that he has been talking about God's grace throughout doesn't make sense when one considers the reference in the first line to those "the Idols I have loved so long." To refer to God's grace as an Idol seems blasphemous for Idols in both the Islamic and Christian traditions refer to false gods. It seems more likely that those Idols refer to the sensual pleasures here in this life for over-indulgence is certainly something that would ruin his reputation in contrast to following God's commandments which would do exactly the opposite.
This quatrain also follows the theme of the two previous quatrains which focus on death. In this quatrain the Poet/Narrator seems to regret his past behavior, wondering if he has been following false gods--a very common response among many people who suddenly realize that the end is near for them--a reconsideration of their past life and what they have made of it. Deathbed conversions and repentance are not unusual, after all.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Langston Hughes: Does it matter?
New Year
The years
Fall like dry leaves
From the top-less tree
Of eternity.
Does it matter
That another leaf has fallen?
-- Langston Hughes --
The Collected Poems of Langston Hughes
About ten days ago Mayan Calendar ended and a new cycle began. Today, our calendar begins a new cycle. In spite of the foolish panic of some, I really didn't see any difference when the Mayan Calender ended. And, frankly, this morning I had to remind myself that we are now in 2013 for I couldn't see anything different this morning either.
If either calendar change makes a difference, I think it's only because we decide that it does. Langston Hughes asks a question--Does it matter/That another leaf has fallen?-- and, like many other writers, doesn't answer his question. He leaves it for you and me and the other guy.
Does it matter?
The years
Fall like dry leaves
From the top-less tree
Of eternity.
Does it matter
That another leaf has fallen?
-- Langston Hughes --
The Collected Poems of Langston Hughes
About ten days ago Mayan Calendar ended and a new cycle began. Today, our calendar begins a new cycle. In spite of the foolish panic of some, I really didn't see any difference when the Mayan Calender ended. And, frankly, this morning I had to remind myself that we are now in 2013 for I couldn't see anything different this morning either.
If either calendar change makes a difference, I think it's only because we decide that it does. Langston Hughes asks a question--Does it matter/That another leaf has fallen?-- and, like many other writers, doesn't answer his question. He leaves it for you and me and the other guy.
Does it matter?
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Loren Eiseley: Darwin's Century
Actually, the full title of this book by Loren Eiseley is Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Men Who Discovered It. The most significant word is "Men" which spells outs Eiseley's thesis that there were many threads in the tapestry of the development of evolution. Darwin's book, The Origin of Species, published in 1859, did not appear in a vacuum, but was the culmination of several centuries of theorizing and debating the origin of the various types of plants and animals found on this planet. Eiseley does not present a defense or a detailed explanation of evolution: that is not his purpose here but rather to spell out the various forerunners and then the defenders of evolution against various attacks made against it.
Eiseley begins with the early theories about the creation of life including that from The Bible in Genesis and hints of a evolutionary process by various thinkers, including those from Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. Eiseley points out the irony that the Great Chain of Being, created by Christian thinkers, which was designed to demonstrate the completeness of God's creation by presenting creatures in an ascending sequence from the lowliest creatures at the "bottom level of creation" to humans at the top. Evolutionists later borrowed this scheme and used it for their own purposes. Eiseley then discusses many thinkers and theorists who had put forth their own small piece of the puzzle: Lamarck, Linnaeus, and Malthus, among numerous others.
Eiseley then brings in one of the most important works for the further development of evolutionary theory; Charles Lyell, whose incredibly influential Principles of Geology, first published in 1834, argued for a much much longer time span for the existence of the earth than the six thousand years many Christian theologians and thinkers had postulated based on their study of the Old Testament. Now, with many millions of years to work in, random selection now had the time available to be effective.
Darwin's seminal work, The Origin of Species, does not, as Eiseley argues, appear out of a vacuum. Rather it draws together many differing threads and ideas, all viewed by Darwin through a perspective gained by his voyage on the Beagle which visited various parts of the world, especially South America, where both new animals and plants appeared along with many that were to be found in Europe and Africa. This raised the question: why did some creatures, plants and animals, appear in the Old and New Worlds and why were there creatures unique only to the New World.
After the publication of The Origin of Species, Darwin faced considerable opposition from both the Christian defenders of Genesis and from scientists of considerable repute. He also gained the strong support of Alfred Lord Wallace, who also published a work on evolution shortly after Darwin, and Thomas Huxley, who became known as Darwin's Bulldog. His grandson, Aldous Huxley, is the author of Brave New World and The Doors of Perception. The opposition of the scientists was quelled by the discovery of Mendel's work on genetic inheritance and by a greater understanding of the sun. Some scientists argued that the world couldn't have lasted millions of years because the sun would have consumed itself in much less time. This was caused by an inadequate appreciation of the sun and its processes.
The only weakness in Eiseley's work is his overly optimistic belief that the opposition to evolution has disappeared. Darwin's Century was published in 1958, approximately a century after Darwin's Origin of Species, and at that time he could not foresee the rise of religious opposition once again to evolutionary theory to the point where a significant portion of the US population does not accept evolution nor any span of time longer than six thousand years of existence for the universe.
Highly recommended for those interested in the early history of evolution and for those who just en;joy reading anything by Loren Eiseley (readers like me).
Eiseley begins with the early theories about the creation of life including that from The Bible in Genesis and hints of a evolutionary process by various thinkers, including those from Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. Eiseley points out the irony that the Great Chain of Being, created by Christian thinkers, which was designed to demonstrate the completeness of God's creation by presenting creatures in an ascending sequence from the lowliest creatures at the "bottom level of creation" to humans at the top. Evolutionists later borrowed this scheme and used it for their own purposes. Eiseley then discusses many thinkers and theorists who had put forth their own small piece of the puzzle: Lamarck, Linnaeus, and Malthus, among numerous others.
Eiseley then brings in one of the most important works for the further development of evolutionary theory; Charles Lyell, whose incredibly influential Principles of Geology, first published in 1834, argued for a much much longer time span for the existence of the earth than the six thousand years many Christian theologians and thinkers had postulated based on their study of the Old Testament. Now, with many millions of years to work in, random selection now had the time available to be effective.
Darwin's seminal work, The Origin of Species, does not, as Eiseley argues, appear out of a vacuum. Rather it draws together many differing threads and ideas, all viewed by Darwin through a perspective gained by his voyage on the Beagle which visited various parts of the world, especially South America, where both new animals and plants appeared along with many that were to be found in Europe and Africa. This raised the question: why did some creatures, plants and animals, appear in the Old and New Worlds and why were there creatures unique only to the New World.
After the publication of The Origin of Species, Darwin faced considerable opposition from both the Christian defenders of Genesis and from scientists of considerable repute. He also gained the strong support of Alfred Lord Wallace, who also published a work on evolution shortly after Darwin, and Thomas Huxley, who became known as Darwin's Bulldog. His grandson, Aldous Huxley, is the author of Brave New World and The Doors of Perception. The opposition of the scientists was quelled by the discovery of Mendel's work on genetic inheritance and by a greater understanding of the sun. Some scientists argued that the world couldn't have lasted millions of years because the sun would have consumed itself in much less time. This was caused by an inadequate appreciation of the sun and its processes.
The only weakness in Eiseley's work is his overly optimistic belief that the opposition to evolution has disappeared. Darwin's Century was published in 1958, approximately a century after Darwin's Origin of Species, and at that time he could not foresee the rise of religious opposition once again to evolutionary theory to the point where a significant portion of the US population does not accept evolution nor any span of time longer than six thousand years of existence for the universe.
Highly recommended for those interested in the early history of evolution and for those who just en;joy reading anything by Loren Eiseley (readers like me).
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Thomas Hardy: Two Christmas poems
Two Christmas poems by Hardy-- or rather I should say two very different Christmas poems by Hardy. In spite of his reputation for gloom and despair, mostly fueled by his later novels, especially Tess and Jude, the second is just as typical of Hardy as is the first.
A Christmas Ghost-Story
South of the line, inland from far Durban,
A mouldering soldier lies--your countryman.
Awry and doubled up are his gray bones,
And on the breeze his puzzled phantom moans
Nightly to clear Canopus: "I would know
By whom and when the All-Earth-gladdening Law
Of Peace, brought in by the Man Crucified,
Was ruled to be inept, and set aside?
And what of logic or of truth appears
In tacking 'Anno Domini' to the years?
Near twenty-hundred liveried thus have hied,
But tarries yet the Cause for which He died."
Christmas-eve 1899
-- Thomas Hardy --
from The Works of Thomas Hardy
Christmastide
The rain-shafts splintered on me
As despondently I strode;
The twilight gloomed upon me
And bleared the blank high-road.
Each bush gave forth, when blown on
By gusts in shower and shower,
A sigh, as it were sown on
In handfuls by a sower.
A cheerful voice called, nigh me,
"A merry Christmas, friend!"--
There rose a figure by me,
Walking with townward trend,
A sodden tramp's who, breaking
Into thin song, bore straight
Ahead, direction taking
Toward the Casuals' gate.
-- Thomas Hardy --
from The Works of Thomas Hardy
After reading the second poem, I couldn't help but think of Hardy's "The Darkling Thrush," which I had already posted once before, but I think it deserves at least one reminder.
The Darkling Thrush
I leant upon a coppice gate
…..When Frost was spectre-gray,
And Winter's dregs made desolate
…..The weakening eye of day.
The tangled bine-stems scored the sky
…..Like strings of broken lyres,
And all mankind that haunted nigh
…..Had sought their household fires.
The land's sharp features seemed to be
…..The Century's corpse outleant,
His crypt the cloudy canopy,
…..The wind his death-lament.
The ancient pulse of germ and birth
…..Was shrunken hard and dry,
And every spirit upon earth
…..Seemed fervorless as I.
At once a voice arose among
…..The bleak twigs overhead
In a full-hearted evensong
…..Of joy illimited;
An aged thrush, frail, gaunt, and small
…..In blast-beruffled plume,
Had chosen thus to fling his soul
…..Upon the growing gloom.
So little cause for carolings
…..Of such ecstatic sound
Was written on terrestrial things
…..Afar or nigh around,
That I could think there trembled through
…..His happy good-night air
Some blessed Hope, whereof he knew
…..And I was unaware.
-- Thomas Hardy --
A Christmas Ghost-Story
South of the line, inland from far Durban,
A mouldering soldier lies--your countryman.
Awry and doubled up are his gray bones,
And on the breeze his puzzled phantom moans
Nightly to clear Canopus: "I would know
By whom and when the All-Earth-gladdening Law
Of Peace, brought in by the Man Crucified,
Was ruled to be inept, and set aside?
And what of logic or of truth appears
In tacking 'Anno Domini' to the years?
Near twenty-hundred liveried thus have hied,
But tarries yet the Cause for which He died."
Christmas-eve 1899
-- Thomas Hardy --
from The Works of Thomas Hardy
Christmastide
The rain-shafts splintered on me
As despondently I strode;
The twilight gloomed upon me
And bleared the blank high-road.
Each bush gave forth, when blown on
By gusts in shower and shower,
A sigh, as it were sown on
In handfuls by a sower.
A cheerful voice called, nigh me,
"A merry Christmas, friend!"--
There rose a figure by me,
Walking with townward trend,
A sodden tramp's who, breaking
Into thin song, bore straight
Ahead, direction taking
Toward the Casuals' gate.
-- Thomas Hardy --
from The Works of Thomas Hardy
After reading the second poem, I couldn't help but think of Hardy's "The Darkling Thrush," which I had already posted once before, but I think it deserves at least one reminder.
The Darkling Thrush
I leant upon a coppice gate
…..When Frost was spectre-gray,
And Winter's dregs made desolate
…..The weakening eye of day.
The tangled bine-stems scored the sky
…..Like strings of broken lyres,
And all mankind that haunted nigh
…..Had sought their household fires.
The land's sharp features seemed to be
…..The Century's corpse outleant,
His crypt the cloudy canopy,
…..The wind his death-lament.
The ancient pulse of germ and birth
…..Was shrunken hard and dry,
And every spirit upon earth
…..Seemed fervorless as I.
At once a voice arose among
…..The bleak twigs overhead
In a full-hearted evensong
…..Of joy illimited;
An aged thrush, frail, gaunt, and small
…..In blast-beruffled plume,
Had chosen thus to fling his soul
…..Upon the growing gloom.
So little cause for carolings
…..Of such ecstatic sound
Was written on terrestrial things
…..Afar or nigh around,
That I could think there trembled through
…..His happy good-night air
Some blessed Hope, whereof he knew
…..And I was unaware.
-- Thomas Hardy --
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)