An Unravelling and a Revelation

It’s blog time once more, and our class is once again delving into mysterious poetry. The Second Coming is to some degree a very mysterious poem. Perhaps that is what is so intriguing about it. My favorite part of the poem, and the part that I understood the most, was the first stanza. I believe most of the class would agree with me. There are some important cues to look at while reading the first stanza. It may not be as straightforward as we think. One dynamic of the poem that stands out is an overall unwinding of old and a prophecy of something new.

In class we talked about the gyre. It is a cone-like spiraling motion-- a ‘widening “ gyre. The part of the gyre to focus on is the part that is not compact and because it is widening it is getting weaker and weaker and further and further away from it’s starting point. In the next line the falcon is also getting further and further away from his starting point, the falconer. Once again we see a circling motion, and a widening as the falcon’s circles become so large he cannot hear the falconer. Later in the poem the word “loosed” is used twice. Over all in the first stanza, there is something that is being loosed. Things are beginning to unwind. The clockwork is over and things as they were before are quickly unraveling.

Something is indeed happening as told by the next three lines. The first line says, “Surely some revelation is at hand.” Don’t let the word revelation confuse you. Some revelation does not necessarily mean The Revelation we are familiar with found in the book of Revelation in the Bible. What if it is a different kind of revelation? What if Yeats is playing off the biblical references we know to symbolize a revelation he is introducing? Next the poem leads into the part about the sphinx. I do not fully understand what the sphinx means, but whatever it is, it represents the “revelation” at hand. Once again don’t get caught up in the use of the word beast. What if Yeats means a different kind of beast? After focusing on the sphinx it says, “while all about it / Reel shadows of the indignant birds.” Here again we can notice imagery of a circling motion.

Next there is a shift in the poem. “Twenty centuries of stony sleep,” and “Bethlehem” are found in the same three lines. This is no coincidence. Yeats wrote the poem in the twentieth century. There had been twenty centuries since Jesus’ birth. Since Jesus’ birth there had been twenty centuries of nightmares, (19-20) or at least in Yeats eyes there was. Now finally those nightmares were coming to an end.

I don’t understand exactly what Yeats is prophesying, but it has to be something along the lines of a change occurring in his times. Perhaps he is saying something about Postmodernism. There is definitely a strong indication of a progression and an unraveling. The gyre’s starting point was at Jesus’ birth and now, with it’s widening it’s power is lost. Now, to Yeats, a new birth is at hand.

P.S. I was unable to comment because of a glitch on Blogspot I think. I'll type comment.

A Disturbing Sight

"Says it feels right this time,
Turn around and found the light lime...
Then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel
was just a freight train coming your way."
-Metallica, No Leaf Clover

It's good to be back on the Honors Blog, ain't it? Let's see what I've got to work with here...ooh, Yeats! I've heard good things about this guy. Let's see, The Second Coming, hm, sounds vaguely Christian. (Reads)...what is this I don't even...???? I don't need to drive this train of thought any longer, we all know how divisive this poem was and how we couldn't fully determine the meaning of this poem. Still, there is a certain theme I want to touch on that this poem brings on more than any other I've read-what if we want to come is actually not what we get at all?
It's happened to us all. You take a difficult test that we think deserves an A, but you end up with a C. You get tickets to see someone perfom live hoping for an amazing show, but for one reason another it totally sucks. Now take that and enlarge it over 9000 times...this is Yeat's reality.

Consider that Yeats was an Irishman writing during a time of intense holy war between the Catholics and Protestants, where he not only knew of the scriptures and our perception of the apocalypse but also saw religion in its most evil form. Consider that this poem was written right after World War I, in a time where people had been eagerly expecting the return of Jesus Christ. For some, the most terrifying war of all time surely meant that Jesus would be coming soon and end the madness. For the secular, this was surely the war to end all wars and utopia would surely be established. Others merely saw a return to peace and hoped for better days after the hell they just went through. Yeats didn't share their sentiments. Regardless of all the symbolism and allusions that may or may not be in this poem, one thing is certain...things are about to get very bad very soon. It is not a second coming of Christ, but a second coming of war! We are not heading upwards towards Utopia but downwards into something far more terrifying than we can imagine.

Now consider the global depression that the world fell into after the war, the rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, and, most notable considering the Sphynx allusion, the Six Day War on the newly reformed nation of Israel of which Egypt participated in and tell Yeats he's wrong. Yeah, poets are like that, which is why I say that the light at the end of the tunnel most Europeans were expecting turned out to be a freight train, "surely the Second Coming is at hand."

Anyway, that's just some food for thought, thanks for reading. Please feel free to comment as you please, I commented on Joshua's The Slouching World.

Yeats gives me the eats!!!

While reading Yeats three poems I unconsciously swallowed about four brown cinnamon sugar pop-tarts....

Anyways, of the three poems my favorite by far was Sailing to Byzantium, especially the first stanza. I also found this the easiest one to understand...or maybe I just got it all wrong.

My favorite lines of the poem are in the first stanza:
" Whatever is begotten, born, and dies.
Caught in that sensual music all neglect
monuments of unageing intellect."
From these lines, for me at least, I can really understand and empathize with the speaker's agony of old age. His yearning to find a way somehow to remain youthful really makes me see the desperation in being forgotten or left behind, which goes along with old age.

In the second stanza, the speaker goes on to say that:
" An aged man is but a paltry thing,
a tattered coat upon a stick, unless
Soul clap its hands and sing, louder sing"
This, too, makes me feel sad for the speaker. For it seems like he is trying to figure out how to live when he is "fastened to a dying animal" (his body). My own grandparents, at times, have expressed somewhat embarrassingly to me, the same sort of helplessness. In the mind, heart, and soul, they are still full of life and energy. Yet, they physically can not achieve what they want to because they are trapped in their own bodies.

The last stanza is my second favorite of the poem. In it, the speaker desires to be taken away from "any natural thing" and to basically be kept beautiful in what the speaker goes on to describe as a work of art I feel like. This part very much reminds me of Ode to A Grecian Urn where the two lovers are left suspended outside of time, untouched by old age and ugliness, where they always will remain youthful and beautiful. By desiring to be taken away from any natural thing, it seems as if the speaker almost wants to be something fake, artificial, which would keep his body from aging and becoming ugly.

Basically, this poem made me dread getting old and ugly and being forgotten. Lovely.

The Slouching World

William Butler Yeats penned "The Second Coming" in 1919, when the human race had just emerged from the worst military conflict in history: World War I, the supposed "War to End All Wars." Never before had the nations experienced destruction on such a large scale, and to all its survivors, the war seemed apocalyptic. Relating to this sentiment, Yeats writes,

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.

Yeats, a non-Christian, does not use the Second Coming of Christ in a literal sense; rather, he uses it as symbolism for his primary audience, Christian Europe. The Second Coming is known as a cataclysmic event- the final chapter of history and the end of all things- and Yeats uses poetic imagery to describe it:

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

These lines are a commentary on the general state of man. Again, one should only consider the world in 1919: the nations were traumatized, and all that seemed to be good was overshadowed by war, pestilence and plague. As bad as the world seemed, it was but "mere anarchy," a shadow of things to come.

Yeats says that the best of men "lack all conviction" while the evilest "are full of passionate intensity." When good men lack the conviction to do good, they will not rise to stop those who are passionately intent on doing evil. Yeats read the times well, as it was this lack of conviction that would allow men like Adolf Hitler to come to power.

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

It is not Christ who is slouching towards Bethelehem. It is us. We are the beast. According to Yeats, there is not an external doom coming to the world. The world is creating its own doom. We, humanity, will be the ones who destroy ourselves. The world is on the downgrade, continually slouching towards desolation and, ultimately, darkness.

EDIT: I commented on His Beloved's "Questions concerning 'The Second Coming'" and Mallory Searcy's "First post on the honor's blog."

Poetry

Yesterday in class, I found myself torn during the discussion on writing poetry instead of pros. I am pretty scientifically minded. I rather like bullet points and concise facts. I like things to be clear and plainly expressed. However, for some reason that I will never begin to be able to explain, I love poetry. Despite mystery and an unclear message, I have always enjoyed reading poetry, and even writing it (badly) on occasion. ”The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity” just wouldn’t be as effective had Yeats said “Good people are lazy and bad people are motivated.”

Commented om "The End??"

-Jamie

Like a lost falcon...

I'm just going to focus on the first stanza, momentarily forgetting whether or not this poem is about the second coming of Jesus or WW1.

"Turning and turning in the widening gyre,
The falcon cannot hear the falconer."

These first two lines immediately reminded me of the parable of the True Shepherd.

"The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice." (John 10:2-4 NIV) 
Yeats is saying that in the midst of the chaos of war Christians felt lost  and out of touch with God. Like a falcon who could not hear directions from his master and didn't know which way to go or sheep without their shepherd, they forgot to put their trust in the True Shepherd. They lost sight of hope and neglected the One who gives us hope in times of trouble. But we don't have to be in the middle of World War to feel distant from God. It happens to all Christians during trying times in our own lives. We turn to other things to fill the void when we feel like God is silent, and this is when "things fall apart" and we experience "mere anarchy". But if we remain still long enough, we can hear the shepherd's soft whisper of encouraging words, guiding us through the gyre and back to safe ground.
-Tori Burger
Commented on Bethan's "Yeats gives me the eats"

Well, back into the fray!

First and foremost, all of you rock my world. I am thoroughly loving the discussions we started off with this semester. It is absolutely wonderful being "home" again, and it is exciting to see that we all came back with swords at the ready. Truly, tantum e tenebris receptum constabit.

And now into the fray...

Each semester is naturally different from those previous, but this is radically different for me. I am currently immersed in three or four-ish different movements of literature, which makes my semester a little like the gyre. However, this gyre is fascinating and frightening and beautiful. In my mind rages a war among the Medievals, Romantics, and the Moderns--and each of the opponents has something to say about nature or Nature (thanks, Wordsworth).

CS Lewis and Schuler have shown me over the last week that the Medievals have a place for everything and everything must be put in its right place...which they accomplish, but according to their own Model (go listen to Radiohead when you feel like figuring out this Model, ugh). As one who is utterly obsessed with the Middle Ages, something about this Model invites me in. Everything has been given a purpose; the society that bore them has their significance built into its cycle through history. Something about that is desirable to me, but I think I may be speaking that from weariness of seeking my purpose. Nature has its purpose; she is everything but nothing. "By surrendering the dull claim to be everything, she becomes somebody." And according to the Model, all things have a place within her. There is no room for mystery.

Next, I have Wordsworth traipsing through the woods to find a plot of land untouched by society, this place where he can simply be and dwell for a little while. Then he destroys it. Not really sure what to do with that, but he does respect Nature regardless of his slip in "Nutting". In "Tintern Abbey", he prays to Nature. Not in a deifying way, but a veneration of her for what she shows him about himself through his memories that include her and also the effects she (Nature) will have on his sister.

Then, Strauss...modernity insists that it is man who can be both potter and clay for lack of a better or non-Biblical reference--not that I equate Lady Natura with God. That would be nonsensical and stupid. Strauss reveals to us that "man's humanity is not due to nature but to history, to the historical process, a singular or unique process which is not teleological." The Medievals also uphold history, perhaps even more so than the Moderns. The difference is in the purpose of nature/Nature. The modern man defines his own purpose, and tells Nature what hers is as well. Everything and nothing?

There are loopholes in everything I just said, and I could sit here and point them out. But my blog would be obnoxiously long, and no one wants that.

COMMENTED ON MALLORY'S

Question's concerning "The Second Coming"

I found reading the "Second Coming" by Yeats very interesting. Upon first reading the title of this poem I had the mind to believe it would be about the second coming of Christ. I do believe thats what everyone believed when reading the title. Once reading the poem, however, it takes a different turn. It is in fact, not at all talking about the second coming of Christ, from what I can tell. I know we threw ideas around and talked at first about it being about the second coming of Christ because it does talk about the beast and then Bethlehem.  Considering that Yeats was an atheist, I can only think that he was not referring to Christ's return. By these following words: "A shape with lion body and the head of a man...And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?" we came to the assumption that the beast was a sphinx. I guess, as i said in my comment of Ajackson's post "The End??" why does the sphinx go to Bethlehem? There has to be some meaning behind that. Also, what does it mean when Yeat's says "Slouches towards Bethlehem to  be born?" Does that mean that this beast is truly being born again or does this mean waking up for the first time in such a long time? These are just some questions that I have been wondering about.

P.s I commented on Ajackson's post "The End??"

First post on the honor's blog

We closed in class on tuesday with the purpose of studying poetry. I haven't really been able to stop thinking about it. This is probably because I love poetry so much and I've never thought to explain why. To understand it in a class setting is a bit foreign to me. I don't know what to think about studying The Waste Land tomorrow because I have read it for years and have never had to understand it in an intellectual sense. I just like it. I like the way it makes me feel, what it makes me think about. I was homeschooled, so most of my interaction with literature has been just reading it. over and over again. I carried around a beat up copy of T S Elliot poems everywhere i went my junior and senior year in high school. No one ever asked me to explain Prufrock, or what the "overwhelming question'' was. I read one time that Elliot said great art should be felt before it is understood, and I agree. Not that it shouldn't be understood, but just that you should feel it first. When Dr. Abernathy yelled out "turning turning in the widening gyre/ the falcon cannot hear the falconer" I FELT the words, and something in me knows exactly what they mean, even though we toss around the concepts for an hour in class and I can't make any sense of them. So, I don't know if I'll have anything profound to say about The Waste Land, but it's beautiful and sad, and i do get that.

ps- i commented on "like a lost falcon..."

The End of My Life as I Know It, or Something Like That.

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;/Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,/The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere/The ceremony of innocence is drowned;/The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity.”

Friday marks the ending of my favorite television show. A show that has helped me through some incredibly hard times, including a move in the middle of my junior year in high school. And I feel exactly like the description above. Many people think I’m crazy for caring so much about a television show. But like I said, it has been one constant thing in my life for five years and now it won’t be there any longer. Actually, a more accurate representation of the way I feel is the first two lines of the poem, the ones directly preceding the ones I’ve quoted above. I feel like once the show is over, I will be flying high above the ground in ever widening circles until I can’t hear anything or anyone. I know this feeling won’t last long, probably not more than a day or two, but nevertheless, the feeling will be real.

Okay, I admit, I really don’t know what Yeats was trying to say. I also don’t know that we came to any sort of consensus about what the poem meant. And since I don’t understand poetry anyway, I thought it appropriate to try and relate my feelings to the surface level of a very confusing poem. Maybe next week I’ll understand the readings better and be able to actually write on those. I doubt it though.

Until next time,

Meghan

P.S. I commented on Rachel’s post and I would put the title of the post, but I can’t remember what it is, sorry.

Rebirth

In Eliot's "The Waste Land," he sets the whole mood for his collection by opening with "April is the cruellest month . . . ." It is very evident that Eliot sees the corruption and brokenness in the world. I like it. As he progresses through, I find it harder to follow his thoughts. They seem broken; maybe that is his point, too.

Death (the state and not the process) is certainly a recurring idea in Eliot's writing. As he nears the fifth section, he speaks of the thunder. I cannot quite figure out his meaning here, but the sterility of the thunder may refer to the silence of the gods or a deity. He may be referring to either a post-violence silence void of life due to warring, or a slow, agonizing death brought on by a lack of life from a silent god. Either way, the lack of water symbolizes a lack of life.

He also begins on a mountain that reminds me of a hopeless version of Dante's Purgatorio: a lack of relief, slowly dying with merely a little patience, a mysterious figure up the road.

Also, I wonder whether or not Eliot liked Poe's writing. They remind me of one another, although merely in content and not form.

Ad augusta per angusta,

Will

Commented on Cheyenne's "Secularized Biblical faith"

Secularized Biblical faith

In The Three Waves of Modernity on page 82, Modernity is defined as secularized biblical faith. It goes on to say we should not look forward to a heaven after we die, but instead focus on making a heaven on earth by our own means. We want both. The thought of eternal happiness is nice but it is also desired to have a pleasant and comfortable life on earth. We are raised being told to go to school and get an education to be able to get hired at a high paying job. With a lot of money you can buy a nice house and have other expensive things that will make us happy. Do we chase things that we believe will complete is and then are just even more unsatified when we get them? We want our rewards in the after life and at the same time we don't want to struggle in this one.

The End??

So i was brainstorming ideas to use for my first ever blog post and i kept coming back to Yeats's image of a man-headed lion rising up out of the desert. in class we were kicking around the idea that it's the sphinx and a symbol for Egypt. that could be true, but what if it's more? In the poem, the Sphinx rises up from the desert sand and stalks towards Bethlehem.  I know that William Yeats was an atheist, but he had to believe that something was going on with Bethlehem because there are SOOOO many other cities he could have used. The sphinx in the Egyptian culture was a symbol of intellect and power. The fact that Yeats says it has "a gaze as blank and pitiless as the sun," makes me think that some merciless spirit, cruel and calculating, stalks toward the cradle of Christianity. Everything about the situation screams of ill intentions for little city and what might be within it, from the beast rising from the desert (a place of death and little hope) to the desert birds (which more often than not are vultures), circling around it. The title of the poem is "The Second Coming", but what is it the second coming of?  Could it be the second coming of the world's attempt to snuff out Christianity at it's roots: first with Herod, and now with whatever evil spirit represented by this sphinx creature? it's seems to me that the ideas of the west-- power, intellect, cruelty- have come to finally put an end to the "old ways" of Christianity and once and for all crush it from existence. wow that last one was kinda dark....

(haha! "edit post"-- marvelous button that is..) P.S. i commented on "Yeats gives me the eats!!!"

Many Different Meanings

After sitting in class today and listening to the many interpretations of “The Second Coming” I decided I wanted to write on a view point myself. I know I mentioned it in class but I want to say it again, what if we are way over thinking the poem instead of allowing it to be as simplistic as Yeats intended it to be? If it is true, like Will and Lane said, that everyone would have understood and heard of the stories of the Bible, then our author would be wise to use biblical references in an allegorical way. I believe this poem could be describing the war and trying to help people better understand it Yeats used scripture, which everyone had been raised hearing, to smoothly explain, in a descriptive way, what he wanted to communicate to his audience. We need to remember to put his piece of work into the context which Yeats would have been in. The first stanza talks about “The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere/ the ceremony of innocence is drowned.” This section sounds like it could be from Revelation when the angels are pouring out the bowls of wrath or when the beast is persecuting the saints. This poem really could be taken in a variety of ways, but I think we should really try and ponder the context and think about how instead of always taking something to such a deep level the author might have meant something to be easy to grasp.

Ps - This post was intended for Chloe R. post, but the blog would not let me comment on her post...
I agree we need to be seeking to share Christ with those who are lost and "make the most of every opportunity, however the bible says we are to anticipate and desire for the day of Christ's return. Having said that, it does not mean we need to stop being concerned for all those who are perishing, on the contrary, Jesus told us to "go make disciples of all the nations". We are suppose to care about the lost, one quote that I love that my pastors says (and I am sure other pastors as well) is how much do we have to hate someone to not tell them about Christ and let them go to hell not knowing if they have heard about Him before or not?(I am paraphrasing, he says it better, sorry) it is true though, how much do we have to hate someone to really not care about them going to hell, a lake of fire to burn forever?.?

The Best Lack All Conviction

I'm not sure if we ever discovered the meaning of Yeats' poem, The Second Coming, because in the middle of the discussion I got stuck on something that somebody suggested about the second coming of Christ. A few people mentioned that maybe Yeats' was looking at the second coming of Christ from a non-Christian's point of view and that was why the poem was so dark. Then Lane mentioned that Yeats' father was an atheist. I spent the rest of class thinking about the second coming of Christ from a non-believer's perspective, and while I was, I got mad at the Christians. The coming of Christ and being taken home are things that Christians pray for. We even make up songs about it! Why is that? Because we're not content with the mission and the place that God has placed us in right now? I know that the Bible says that we're aliens on this earth that is not our home and blah blah blah, but when we pray and sing for Christ to come soon, are we aware of what we're asking for? It would be the equivalent of saying, "Forget about the people who haven't yet heard, let them be tortured and burned in hell! I'm ready to go!!!" I'm reminded of 2 Peter when Peter tells the people that "one day with the LORD is like a thousand years," and that we misunderstand His slowness because He doesn't want anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance. I know I'm  way off, but I like Yeats much more in my head when he's saying this. I'm not saying that I'm against praying for Christ to come, I'm ready for some glorification and some praise for all of eternity, but with that in mind, the time we have here on earth with everyone else becomes extremely little and very precious. Maybe one day I'll stop thinking like a missionary but I doubt it.

(Commented on Rachel's)

Things Fall Apart

I remember Yeat's Second Coming poem from highschool when I read Chinua Achebe's "Things Fall Apart" which the title was (obviously) taken from the poem. The book chronicles the life of a tribal African man during the colonization of his area. Achebe is famous for being one of the first African writers to write about Africa in English. I remember this book because of the simplicity of the message and the richness of his story telling style. The reason Achebe uses this poem by Yeats is because as the white men come into the village and begin to take over the social construction of the Igbo village falls apart. Chaos reigns as people try to decide what is right the old ways of the generations before them or these new beliefs. The fight within this poem is clear. It took me back to the discussions we have had about the conflict between order and chaos (Apollo Dionysus). In the African village an honors student can recognize the same struggles we face in our class today as we carefully journey through literature and philosophy.

Today we hashed out in class the meaning behind the poem and struggled with, why poetry? I think part of the reason poetry is so important is it's relevancy. When the poem is meaningful to a person across time and cultural boundaries then the true depth of meaning begins to show. We can study this work years after it's publish date on our computer screens and still be struck by the imagery and fear the author intends.

*I will post on whoever posts after me I suppose

Resolve

Resolve is a word I certainly abused while writing my paper, but I cannot find any resolve for resolve. Throughout my research process, I read of these great minds, with whom I could never hope to compare, and each of them has come to some sort of resolve. Even after writing my paper that seemingly comes to a conclusion or reconciliation between two different thinkers, I still cannot find my own resolve for my topic, or many other topics running through my brain from this semester and semesters previous. While we study these great minds, we essentially model ourselves after them and develop our own thoughts, opinions, and beliefs. We search the Scriptures without end for peace and hope's sake, we take to biology or psychology to further our point with empirical evidence or otherwise...maybe this is just me. Nevertheless, I long to be like these people we read about, and yet I have no resolve. Are their own beliefs as unresolved as mine? Did they face the grace with the same questions they told us they answered? Of course we all have questions that will go unanswered in life, but I simply want a resolve, a deeper peace that what I have found thus far.

COMMENTED ON KATELYN'S

P.S. Sorry for my lateness.

Out of Good Blog Titles...

So this is late, but at least I’m getting it... :)

Since Thanksgiving Break I have felt extremely swamped, like I haven’t had enough time for everything, just as most of you probably do. With that being said, I have still found a chance to read Hopkins.

I think my favorite poem was God’s Grandeur, mainly because I actually understood it. I like the idea where Hopkins writes about all the influence that the generations of men have had on the earth, but then he writes,”...for all this, nature is never spent...”

This makes me think of how God provides for all His creation, just like Matthew 6:26 says, “Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?” I believe we forget that a lot of times and don’t think about turning to God to provide for us.

P.S. I posted on “Aaaaaaaah!” by Ben.

Jefus is the Reafon for the Seafon!

Soooo, hey guys!
Merry Christmas to all and to all a good morning!
(yes, I do know those are not the words, but it's like, almost one thirty)

I hope everyone had a magical thanksgiving, and the turkey didn't gobble away. :)
REMEMBER! THE real reason for Christmas is.... *drumroll please*
Jesus! :D
I had a little girl at work the other day sing me the ten commandments song after telling me "Jefus is the reafon for the seafon" She may have had a lisp....? Still super cute.

Anyway, I like(d) reading Dostoevsky, and thanks you the Honors Final Drama I can properly pronounce his name. I think. Also, I love you all.
I now bid you all, adieu.

What would happen if I wrote a blog all about nothing?

First of all, if you got the reference kudos to you on your music selection.

Moreover, Nietzsche apparently knew Communism and Nazism was coming.

Secondarily, When I read about the New Idol, I immediately thought of the people giving up their rights to the state in order to obtain a pseudo-happiness.

Sixthly, and lastly, This is what happened during the Russian Revolution

Thirdly, Look where it got the Russians

and to conclude, I commented on Callie's "For some reason Kierkegaard is on my mind"

Aaaaaaaah!

I emerged from the practice rooms about ten minutes ago and I just now remembered that I had a blog to post! As my life has been consumed with memorization of piano pieces, voice pieces, a scene from "the last night of ballyhoo", the honors drama and writing a research paper, I haven't had time to read Hopkins. I've been scouring Dostoevsky and Descartes for tidbits of wonderful information, though. Something that I've found really interesting (and actually decided to base my paper around..) is a quote from one of my sources for my paper. The source is an article by Kerry McSweeney exploring the dreams of a few great literary works (Crime and Punishment, Wuthering Hights, War and Peace). The main quote I'm using from her article is this.

"What madmen represent to themselves while awake is also represented in the dreams of the sane while they are asleep."

As I have more paper yet to write, I'm just going to leave this quote suspended in cyberspace.

So what did we learn this week? Nothing? Good. That's exactly what I thought.

Until Next Time,
Benjamin

P.S. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

P.P.S. I commented on Blahrgoty1131's blog "Uplifted"

Can't Wait For Spring

Christmas is like nothing else. It brings joy and cheer, for
different reasons in everyone. For most of us here, it is the beautiful
reminder of Christ’s coming down to be with us for a little while before
sending the Holy Spirit to live with us. But it is so cold. So, when I looked
at Hopkins's poems, I went automatically to Spring.

"Nothing is so beautiful as Spring"

I love the reference to Spring being like the garden Eden. Unfortunately, our sin soured that and those happy times, like Spring, sour as well. Which brings me back to Christmas. Because of it, we could have an even more joyful "holiday", Easter! (Which is in the Spring). This poem just reminds me of how we will have Spring, Christmas, Eden, Easter, and God all wrapped up in one once we finally reach Heaven. There's nothing better to work for than worshipping our Lord and Father which I think this poem is a good reminder of.

For some reason Kierkegaard is on my mind....

It interests me that so many authors that we have read have written concerning the universal law, and stepping over it. Kierkegaard speaks of the man of faith who can overstep the universal law at the command from his God; Dostoevsky presents Raskolnikov who tries to step over these bounds like Napoleon, but whose action results in epic failure; and Nietzsche who presents the idea of the superman who he believes should not be ashamed to express his uniqueness and cross over the lines of the "supposed universal law." The main question comes up of the importance of the ethical, and when/ whether or not these bounds should be crossed? Or, for Nietzche the question even arises of the validity of such a universal law, or if such a law even exists at all.

It is interesting that Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky seem to come to different conclusions about the ability of a person to overcome the universal law, despite the fact that both are christian men. For, Raskolnikov, in his attempt to trespass the universal law, fails and in the end accepts it. Whereas Kierkegaard presents Abraham as a wonderful example of how one can enter into the mystery of faith and nobly transcend above the universal law. Perhaps a closer look at the circumstances surrounding Abraham and Raskolnikov would provide a better understanding as to why the authors came to such different conclusions. Maybe they were focusing on different aspects of the same topic....

I commented on Jamie's God and Science

Uplifted

Hopkins' poems are so bright and cheerful when compared to the heavy reading of late. Some of the poems have a darker tone, but for the most part they are cheerful. My favorite of the poems was "Hurrahing in Harvest." The imagery in the poem creates a very picturesque scene for the reader. Being someone who loves horses, I connected most when Hopkins compares the hills to a stallion in lines nine and ten. He says "And the azurous hung hills are his world-wielding shoulder / Majestic - as a stallion stalwart, very-violet sweet! -- " I think the form is a fourteen line sonnet, however I'm not sure what the meter is. The best part of the poem is the end when Hopkins talks about the beholder seeing a beautiful nature scene and how it uplifts the beholder's heart. It almost makes the reader have that same excited feeling when reading it.

First blog in weeks. feels weird.

I would like to take this moment to share that I hate writing papers… simply because I don’t feel like my brain naturally focuses on things in the “A to B to C” sort of way. It’s more like B to F to Z back to B and then on to A. It’s a very difficult task to try and be organized when I’m jumping between paragraphs trying to sort things out. That being said I guess I’ll talk about Nietzsche. Nietzsche has this quote where he says: “I should only believe in a God who understands how to dance.” And though this is not the point of my blog I feel if Step-Up had a Biblical basis that would be the major quote of the movie. I had no real issue with Nietzsche up until he started talking about women. Up until that point I was just boppin along thinking that though he was completely weird he was at least interesting… and then the chapter. He refers to women as a “dangerous plaything” that, essentially, is only good for getting pregnant and popping out kids. So when I read that it was confirmed in my mind that I don’t really like him. I guess it just made me think of his as just a male ego who thinks he’s more important than he actually is. I do admit that I was still intrigued by his stories… because they’re just super weird. The man carried around a corpse for goodness sake.

a sinful image.

This might not pertain so much to a direct reading, but throughout all of them, I have been constantly noticing and thinking about one thing: How a human, that is created in the image of God, can be naturally sinful. I've gone in circles around this one thought for a few weeks now. I recorded my thought process with sticky notes, and every time I thought of something new in the process, I would write it down on a sticky note and stick it up on my wall. I definitely looked crazy by the time it was over, but I think I might have a conclusion, it is probably not the right conclusion, but it's one. So here's my thought process:
Even though we are created in the image of God, there is no way that we can be good on our own doing. (there is no one who does good. Romans 3:12) Well, first, what does this say of the hope of someone who doesn't have the Anchor that a Christian would have.
Humans are an intertwining of good and bad, of God and flesh. Jesus is pruning the vine of all bad things until judgement day. Therefore, we can't be fully glorified in this fleshly, earthly life, even though we are presently created in the image of God.
God created us in His image, but at the same time, we're sinful. So did God create us sinful? or did He create sin? Or, is sin simply the opposite of good? However, if it was an exact opposite, it would have the same measure of the good, meaning it was created. So did Satan have enough power to reject God and create the opposite of good, which is sin? But isn't God the only Creator? Is Satan a creator or deceiver?
Adam and Eve were the first created humans on the earth, but God hovered over the spirits, (Gen. 1:2). So are these spirits Satan and a third of the angels that were cast out of heaven? If so, we can then conclude that God has created His perfect, in His image humans on the devil's kingdom. For those who are not of God, are of the devil. And whoever is of God knows that this earth is not their home because this earth is corrupt. But why is it corrupt? Before the fall, was the garden supposed to be their home? They were never to ascend to His Kingdom?
Anyways, Adam and Eve disobeyed and chose the option of sin. So even though they chose something for themselves, we can conclude that there is no real choice with God. He gives us the freedom to choose, but any other choice besides Him condemns to hell. (The ability to choose, and freedom are "images" of Him that we have.)
So, we are created in the image of God, but obviously not the full image because we aren't fully glorified. (1 Cor. 13:12).
Back to Satan, he couldn't have created sin because God is the only Creator. Humans have no ability to create anything completely new, or think of anything completely new without using something already given to them. Satan must have then taken the goodness of God and lessened it, and thus sin. So sin is the lessening of the good. Which now makes sense in the contrast to us being created in the image of God, because we aren't the full image but a lesser image.

"His ways are above mine, His thoughts higher."


commented on Lane's

Yep, My Mind Is On Fire...

... Literally and figuratively. My paper was on Schleiermacher and Emerson and their differing approaches to the theology of communication. I've never written a paper that related to my life as much as this one did! God spoke to me so much through it, about how He has put certain people in my life and given me the gift of friendships so that I always have someone to talk with about my struggles and discoveries. And, also so that I can return the favor by listening to theirs and learning from them. He also showed me, as I was writing about absolute dependence, that my dependence wasn't completely lying with God like I thought it was. There are definitely certain things in my life that I have failed to surrender to Him. Although this paper drained me (ok, technically that's the fault of tons of coffee and no sleep as a result of paper writing) I actually enjoyed my discoveries. I plenty of AHA! moments that inspired squeals and happy dances!

Here's a few Augustine quotes that I included in my paper and wanted to share with you guys:

1. "By faithfulness we are collected and wound up into unity within ourselves, whereas we had been scattered abroad in multiplicity."

2. "Pray as though everything depended on God, work as though everything depended on you."

3. " Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand."

 Side-note to everyone: Can I just say that I feel beyond blessed to go to a college where I can openly writes about my faith and grow spiritually from a research paper!!

Commented on Lane's God Complex

Side-note to Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Olsen: 1. Thank you so much Dr. Mitchell for the Emerson: Mind on Fire book! You will see quite a bit from it in my paper! 2. The connection of Schleiermacher to the Sufists was all me. Just wanted to make that clear because I was pretty proud of it. Lol

  

The Last Great King

"There are things that we never want to let go of, people we never want to leave behind. But keep in mind that letting go isn't the end of the world, it's the beginning of a new life."
-Unknown

So, we've reached the end of Realism, and who better to close us out than John Hopkins, who wasn't just a Christian poet but a revolutionary one at that. He came up with his own form of writing. He had his own system of syllables and rhyming, and managed to fuse pure Christian thought with a Romantic sensibility that is really to be admired. Hopkins' poems are proof you don't have to be an up in outer space Romantic to write a beautiful poem about God. In God's Grandeur, he talks of God very matter of factly, describing his omnipotence in a way that is almost inarguable. In other poems, he speaks of God with immense command and control over his subject matter, and it is refreshing to see that Hopkins does not merely speak of God as some great, interstellar romanitic experience but as real being that he knows and is familiar with.

But isn't it also interesting, in retrospect, how much Hopkins is like King Josiah from 2nd Kings and 2nd Chronicles. For those unfamiliar, Josiah, in an era of idolatry and disobdience to the Lord, reformed Judah and brought the nation back to God and cleared out the city of its foreign corruptors. He cleased Judah and reestablished the lost law of Moses, and was the last righteous king of Judah before it fell to Babylon. Next semester we will be entering a godless era of literature where, as Nietzsche predicted, God is indeed dead, and I wonder if there will ever be a man like Hopkins to find a place for our faith. He just may be the last righteous writer before the Modernist era. Do not fear the darkness, though, for we will find truth, we will not lose our faith, we must leave behind the loved ones of the past and move on, no matter how dark it may seem. Do not be afraid.

Thank you for reading my blogs, feel free to comment, have a merry Christmas and God bless you all! BTW, I commented on Jamie Kilpatrick's post, God and Science.

Is that movie you're watching Expelled? If so, I really love Ben Stein and that movie. If not, I absolutely agree with what you're saying. We claim to want to seek truth, but only if it fits our needs. If we don't like what we see, we want to rationalize it away. We as Christians will use that to attack evolutionists and athiests, and they'll use the same thing against us. It's very confusing indeed.

Hopkins

"The Starlight Night" -Everything in this poem seemed to remind me of Christmas, which reminded me of how much I want to be home!

"Look at the stars! look, look up at the skies!"

When I see stars at this time of year it reminds me of Christmas lights. This is the first Christmas that I was not able to help put up lights and the tree.

"Down in the dim woods the diamond delves! the elves ears!"

Elves reminded me of Santa. Then I thought of how long it has been since I have put cookies out for him. I'm thinking that I'll put some out this year."Christ home, Christ and his mother and all his hallows."

The reason for the season is Jesus. Sometimes I feel that He is forgotten in the whirl of Santa, presents, and decorating.

ps i commented on Amanda, Stars

Small World

I am increasingly interested in all of the different parallels that are apparent within the different characters of the works we have studied. We talked about a lot of them in a really cool discussion in which I was able to give you guys a few pointers in Greek. Since then however I have thought about a few more such as:

dare I say it? Raskolnikov and Abraham (in the since that certain men can be go against the universal ethic)

I also found them in good ole Nitz and Raskolnikov... and ultimately these two lead to thoughts of the ideals of such as the likes as Hitler.

These comparisons can bring a lot of uncomfortable feelings. Father Abraham compared to someone who is compared to someone who is compared to Hitler?

Small world. Think about it.

commented on Danniel's

God is Dead

One of the groups in class gave the idea that the quote "God is dead" in Thus Spoke Zarathustra could mean that if people do not act like Christians, God is basically dead to them. If you think about it, the whole reason they became Christians was because of the fact that God is alive. To go about one's life as if He is nonexistent when one claims to be in the light would be pointless. So many people do this because it Christianity is popular or acceptable here, but they still want to be able to live their own life. Oftentimes I think that if we were in a country where Christians were persecuted, we would quickly see who truly loves God and lives as if He is alive today.

This probably won't make sense

Ok so more than anything, this particular blog is more so for me to try and make some sense out of what i'm writing my paper on. In a nutshell, i'm writing about the differences in God consciousness in Poe's Ms. Found in a Bottle and Schleiermacher and the implications of those consciousnesses. My problem though, is that the character in Poe never actually states his beliefs about God one way or another. I think more of what i'm writing about is actually going to be the potential reaction of that character to the God consciousness found in Schleiermacher. Because the character in Poe undergoes a terrible hardship, i am going to attempt to explore the potential extremes of introducing a higher power into the situation under the context of forms of submission. Like i said, this probably didn't make any sense at all, but it was super helpful for me. That is all. Everyone have a wonderful and blessed Christmas!

So with all of the stresses of exams and finals and papers and all that piles up the end of the semester, i decided to blog about what I am writing my paper on. I really enjoyed reading "The Pit and the Pendulum" by Edgar Allan Poe. And i loved the comparison we made of both Poe and Emerson on our midterm exam. We talked about how Poe could be considered a nightmare version of Emerson. I can definitely see how Poe was like the alter ego of Emerson. Poe was dark and wrote on the evil things of man's mind, while Emerson was more optimistic in his writing. In the Pit and the Pendulum, Poe wrote in a way that shows the fear that thrives on one's mind in an experience like that of the Pit and Pendulum is nothing else. It seems to be almost a satisfying feeling to be in that state with no hope that something will change for the better. Emerson, on the other hand, was more hopeful of the things of nature and man's mind. I loved reading both Emerson and Poe!

P.s I commented on Lane's post       

For the sake of brevity I will write about Nietzsche. The man may be insane but he makes some points that we can learn from, though he often takes them to a place that we should not go. For example, he takes the idea of how life is not about a moment but about growth and changes that we undergo, but he takes this to mean that each moment can be without meaning because it will only reoccur. In reality this is not the case, time is not made up of eternal recurrences. Time is made up of many millions of moments in which we decide, make mistakes and learn valuable lessons. Like learning not to leave a paper to the last minute. A mistake but one that can be learned from if I am but willing to make the effort.

commented on Danielle's

God and Science

This week in Dr. Nobel's bio class we have been watching a documentary that explores the lack of academic freedom among scientists as it is related to Intelligent Design. (not Christianity, not even Creationism... just the simple possibility that life could have been designed by some type of intelligent creator.) The information in this documentary has, of course, been disturbing from a Christian point of view, but it has also made me uneasy from a scientific point of view. Isn't the ultimate job of a scientist to find the answers? The true answers, whether we like them or not? Because of this, the line "God is Dead" from Nietzsche makes quite a bit more since. As believers, we know that God is alive. However, among those who do not believe, especially to the point that unbelief has become some type of religion in itself, the simple idea of a creator is ridiculous.

Commented on Lane's "The God Complex"

*Stars*

Here's a lighthearted look at life, because I know stress levels are high with this paper and finals :)
We're almost done with this first semester! It feels like it has gone by so fast, but I have learned so much!
I've had my fair share of stress over the course of this semester, but life moved on and somehow everything got done in time. So for those of you stressing out right now, you should sit back and take a deep breath. If it's dark outside you should go out and look at the stars, because that's what my blog post is about today :)
The poetry Hopkins wrote is beautiful, and I loved the imagery in "The Starlight Night":
"Look at the stars! look, look up at the skies!
O look at all the fire-folk sitting in the air!
The bright boroughs, the circle citadels there!...
This piece-bright paling shuts the spouse
Christ home, Christ and his mother and all his hallows."
This reminded me of "O holy night, the stars are brightly shining. It is the night of our dear Savior's birth."
I could picture Jesus in a manger on that starry night.
One more star reference:
"When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them?" (Psalm 8:3-4)
It just blows my mind that God would do this for us...
Those are my thoughts :)
So go look at some stars!

commented on Danielle's

A Bridge of Ethical Discussion

This blog is less relevant to Thus Spoke Zarathustra and more of an extension of my paper I guess. I'm writing my paper on the teleological suspension of the ethical and while reading Kierkegaard and his arguments, I keep thinking why? What is ethics? What determines whether something is right or wrong? Is it Religion? Laws? self-infused morals and instict? Is ethics what is socially acceptable in our society? Furthermore, is what is ethical a universal? Or is there gray area of what is right and wrong? Is what is ethical for me be unethical for someone else and vice versa? Can there be any one thing of which we say "Yes. this act is right in all situations!" or "No, this act is wrong in all situations." I venture to say that there is no act of which is so pure of which it cannot be considered unethical or any act that is so corrupt that cannot be justified in some way.

The God Complex

In the beginning of the book does Nietzsche not come off the mountain proclaiming that God is dead? That would mean that at least in some perspective that he did in fact believe in some sort of god or another. It doesn't necessarily have to be the Christian one but some higher power would have to exist to back up that statement. How then can you go from proclaiming God is dead to there is no god? It's almost as if overnight Nietzsche went from an agnostic point of view to an atheistic one. He also claims to be a prophet as well doesn't he? Wouldn't that require him to receive his power from somewhere? But there is no god or gods at all. Maybe while he was up on that mountain he fell and bumped his head on a rock and that's where he received his power. Or better yet he was breathing gases released from a crack in the rocks like the Oracle at Delphi. That would explain why he had to return to the mountain.

There is one thing that I do agree with Nietzsche about. That is that Christians have become way to complacent. We don't know have to stand up for what we believe anymore. The most glaring point is that no Christians stopped Zarathustra while he is running around claiming that there is no God and he's dead. The same thing extends into today. We don't do anything to stand up for Christianity. The reason why is most of the time we're taking part in the things to bring it down. The same people in church Sunday morning are the same people who are downtown getting smashed Saturday night. As Christians if we don't stand against something then we are saying that it's ok for it to be done. One of my favorite quotes is, "Not to make a choice is making a choice." That is what we need to think about as Christians. If we don't stand against something that we know is wrong then we are saying that it's ok for anyone to do that. I apologize for the long rant I'm finished now.

P.S. I commented on Danielle's post.

Why does Nietzsche always have to negate everything? I mean, the cynic in me can kind of appreciate the whole negating-free-for-all. There are flaws in every human thought process, but to deride it and deny the existence of it all... I mean, it leaves you with bewilderment as to what Nietzsche actually believed. He didn't believe in systematized beliefs. Not only does this make writing my paper on him frustrating and mind boggling, but it makes me wonder how anyone could live like this. I mean, no wonder he went crazy. I feel like many of these senses are just natural to humans, and to deny them is impossible. (But perhaps I'm just too deeply influenced by the West.) Even more, he seems to contradict himself. Several sources that I have sought after trying to make sense of him say this. Now, I'm not trying to completely bash the man--some of his stuff is interesting. The arrogant tone of Zarathustra doesn't seem to balance out with this disbelief in God. If he is a prophet, where is his authority coming from? Just wondering what made him think he was worthy of giving these answers.

--commented on Jannah's

Power of attorney of power to will

What drives us? What unseen force pushes us forward? Is it a distant power such as fate or destiny? Or is close and personal such as motivation, ambition, dreams, and the will. Either way it doesn't really matter. People will use either answer as their excuse for failure or success depending on their personal preference or religious background. But no matter what the answer is, the topic is still interesting: do I chart my own path? Hollywood has even riden the wave and created movies showing characters fighting for and making their own destinies as in "The adjustment Bureau" and even a character using things to alter his own person so that his destiny in life may be more desireable, "Limitless" (sure it's not mainly about that, but that's what I got from it in relation to this post ;) ). If you look at it, both of those movies show two different viewpoints on the question mentioned earlier. One says that my destiny is not pre-determined as long as I fight for what I want long and hard enough; I make my own destiny. On the other hand the view is as such: My possible fates are A,B,C. If I do this action, A will result. But if I completely change my nature and who I am, I unlock a whole new option not previously available, option D. But, no matter what side of the table you sit on (fate or will-power) you surely must admit there is a grey area, a road where the paths intersect; the point when your own dreams and ambitions merge with your destiny; a moment of recognition where you see yourself in the bigger picture: fate. But before we can ever reach that point you have to somewhat know what you're dealing with.....you. There is no more complicated mess than the human heart, soul, and mind. But it's a beautiful mess, I think. The way emotions, dreams, and logic can all inhabit one person is beyond me. Though they all inhabit the same being they are not always equally dispersed. Sometimes logic dominates and we see a Spoc(k? ch? sorry trekkies I can't spell). Sometimes emotion dominates and we have the crazy lovers throwing all away for someone they feel a connection with. And then we have those dominated by the will............ The will (I believe) is the most powerful force inside the human breast. The will, will stake even it's very existence upon it's fulfillment. We've seen these people throughout history; people that would not stop, people that pursued. The world was too small for Alexander the Great. Napolean has been quoted as saying, "Circumstances? What are circumstances? I make circumstances." A passion inside of us that says no matter how high we climb, we are never satisfied. It's a hunger. It's the "I would sooner fail than not be among the greatest!" mindset. It looks destiny in the face and spits on it. It whispers in the ears of fate and laughs. You see the will, the will to power, trumps all primary purpose. It trumps destiny, until the will becomes one with destiny.

So what do I believe in fate v. affirmative action? To quote Tom Cruise in the Last Samurai, "I belive a man does what he can, until his destiny is revealed." Where does God fit into all this? I couldn't tell you. Does this link up with the pre-destination debate? Probably so. Was I biased in writing this blog? Ofcourse I am, I wrote it. Am I tired? Yes. Can I sleep? No. Am I done? For now.

      So yes I want to start this blog off with honesty. Honestly this last week has been super hectic for me, I've barely had time to get anything done, especially with Christmas Spec. (Which by the way you should all come see IT'S SUPER AMAZING!) So I did not get to finish reading Crime and Punishment. Now with that being said I'm not sure what I will pull from my brain to write about.

      I'd have to say I am in love with the Crime and Punishment. At that times though it takes to places I do not always want to explore. I constantly feel like I'm being pushed to explore the darkest depraved paths of mankind, yet even though I want to turn from it , I cannot I must find out what happens next. Dostoevsky has a way of forcing us to see reality. The people we'd like to sweep under the rug, the places we'd like to forget about, he uses as the main characters and scenes. Crime and Punishment is excellent at reminding people of what is real. The I love how Dostoevsky makes his characters seem like real people. They have complex, entangled and crazy lives. This makes the book all the more interesting I feel like I can identify with the characters. Although I'm not finished with the book, I hope to soon. I'm also now about to crawl in bed, since God let me miraculously remember my blog.


P.S. Um... If I didn't have to write one this week do I get extra credit?

Give thanks and Be Merry.

Hope everybody has a good thanksgiving break and remembers all their thankfful for. :)

Talking to Oneself

When I was reading C&R and began to realize just how much Raskolnikov talks to himself, I thought about it for a second, and I realized I talk to myself quite a lot. Now, I will say that the way and amount Raskolnikov talks to himself borders on the crazy spectrum, but as weird as it seems to say, I am definitely an advocate of self talk. In Raskolnikov's case, his self talk is mostly doubting things about himself and questioning things that he does. This kind of self talk only makes any insecurities one has get much worse. From the very start of the book, Raskolnikov is characterized by his self talk, and specifically by the way he talks to himself. He shows that he does indeed have the intellectual capacity to consider certain topics of weight, but he also hints at some very deep seated personal problems in doing so.

p.s.- sorry this is a really random thing to notice

This is my favorite book ever please please don't blow it off. Read it.

I first read this book a year and a half ago for summer reading. I went into a local used bookstore to find it; after searching on my own for awhile, I finally resorted to asking the cashier if he by chance had it. "As a matter of fact, I do," he said. It was right behind me on his 'Favorites' display. He intensely asked me what I was reading it for, and I told him for a my AP English class. He then looked at me very seriously. "This book changed my life," he said.

I know, I know right? I thought it was really weird. And yeah, that's a cheesy way to start a blog, but that encounter always comes to mind when I think about this book. I get what he was saying now.

The depth and complexity of the characters Dostoevsky creates is incredible. The suspense that builds is just agonizing. Raskolnikov, this awful lunatic, is simultaneously such a powerful conveyer of truth. Like Mitchell said, that is what makes it so incredible--not that the profound comes from some holy Christian person, but from this despicable sinner. It's fabulous writing all around. The ending gets me... the redemption is just so beautiful! I just can't wait to get there. But perhaps all the suffering through is what makes the ending truly worth it, so I suppose I'll just try to contain myself until then.

I guess I have been struck anew with the strength and beauty of Dunya and Sonya's characters. They truly are very similar, and wonderfully complex. Sonya is my favorite--her sacrifice is unimaginable. Ironic that a prostitute can be a Jesus figure in a book, huh? I don't know, I guess all I can say is that Dostoevsky is the man.

I don't truly know what else to say, other than how excited I am to get to discuss this.

This book just does something to me. I can't explain it.

--Danielle

Commented on Samuel's post talking to oneself.

In my head!

Although it is tech week for "a 1940s Radio Christmas Carol", which you should all come see by the way, I still found time to glance over the reading material and I actually had a wonderful conversation with my mother about it. Crime and Punishment just happens to be one of her favorite books of all time, and as we were talking about it we came to the topic of psychosomatic illness.

For those who don't know, psychosomatic illness is defined as a disorder that involves both mind and body. In other words, the illness may be emotional or mental in origin, but it has physical symptoms. In part II, Raskolnikov begins to suffer from such an illness caused by the grief of his own actions.

Anyway, as I was talking to my mother, she mentioned that she had read a book recently about psychosomatic 'stuff' and christianity, and she told me that it is mentioned several times in scripture. Being my mother, though, she didn't tell me where, so I had to go digging for myself. Here's what I found.

"3There is no soundness in my flesh
   because of your indignation;
there is no health in my bones
   because of my sin.
4For my iniquities have gone over my head;
   like a heavy burden, they are too heavy for me."Psalm 38: 3-4

"7 Do not be wise in your own eyes; 
   fear the LORD and shun evil. 
8 This will bring health to your body 
   and nourishment to your bones." - Proverbs 3:7-8

I found a few other verses that I will post at the bottom, but those two are the most relevant. Both of those verses seem to describe Raskolnikov perfectly, well the part about being weighted down and ill because of guilt/sin, not the fearing the lord and shunning evil part.

So, what did we learn today? Nothing? That thoughts can have physical repercussions? That Ben's mom is pretty cool? All good answers. Tune in next week when I'll have time to legitimately read ALL of the text.

PS. I commented on Samuel Oliver's Blog "I don't think it has a title."

PPS. Here are the other scriptures.
John 3:20
Romans 7:23-25
Matthew 23:28
Proverbs 28:13

All About The Murder

English blog 11/16/11

I think it’s really interesting to see the thought process that this man is going through leading up to the murders he commits in part 2. While the act is pre-meditated, it is clear that something is wrong with the guy’s head and he definitely appears a little crazy. He barely eats at all, he is always commenting on the sickly way he feels, and his thought process does not seem like the way a normal person thinks. Actually, it kind of reminds me of honors. I think that if this guy was put on trial he could definitely get away with pleading insanity, even though the act was premeditated. It was not very organized, tons of evidence was left behind, and he acted totally guilty afterwards. He also thought that it was his civil duty to commit the murders due to his own thoughts and then the quote from another scholar “Kill her, take her money and with the help of it devote oneself to the service of humanity and the good of all. What do you think, would not one tiny crime be wiped out by thousands of good deeds?” If these murders were committed today in the exact same way the killer would be found in no time.

-Susan

P.S. I commented of Sam's "untitled"

Russian Authors and Taoist Philosophy

As I read Crime and Punishment, I am increasingly intrigued by Raskolnikov. Here is a dynamic, developing character that seems to constantly flip back and forth from compassion to contempt to compassion to contempt again. As I read into the thought processes of him, I notice that while others see an evil, murderous creature in him, there is also some good as well. For example, although he immediately regrets the decision because of (A) his lack of money and (B) his concern over how the money will be used, the fact remains that he did give money to Sonya's family. In addition, (pg. 154-55)in an uncharacteristically good mood, he again is compassionate in his giving to the street-singer.

In reading this, I am constantly reminded of the Taoist yin yang symbol:

There is the Yang side, the white field with the black spot (insert Treasure Island reference here) and the Yin side, which is the... you know what, you can figure it out. What it represents is that, in this world, there is always an element of the other in two opposing forces. (e.g. Light cannot exist without darkness, initially there must be darkness for the light to fill. Likewise there must be or have been light at one time in order to recognize that the darkness is there.) Bringing this all back to Dostoevsky, even though Raskolnikov is widely considered to be criminally insane. Some will to do good is inside him, even though it is suppressed by his murderous thoughts and intentions. (spoiler alert: apparently Sonya thinks the same way)

~Cody Martin

I posted on Sam's... untitled...

I find it very interesting the way that Raskolnikov is paranoid about his hat being to obvious. Once he realizes that it sticks out and is obvious he makes a mental note that he should wear a less obvious hat for if and when he commits the murder. If I was planning a murder I would never be able to carry it out. I would always be paranoid about all the little things. I think the only way I would be able to do it would be the same way he did. In the heat of the moment.

p.s. I comment on Katelyn Osborne's post.