Life is Beautiful

While reading Man's Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl, I was reminded of a film shown to my International Studies class in high school: Life is Beautiful, the saga of Guido Orefice, a fictional Jewish man who finds purpose and meaning amidst the Holocaust's terrors.

Guido's story, though not as somber as Frankl's, is just as poignant. He observes prisoners mostly devoid of hope, but for the sake of love, he endures the concentration camp and gives hope to his wife and son, also imprisoned. It was love that drove him to go on each day, even though the pain was great.

Frankl relates a similar experience in his book:

Hiding his mouth behind his upturned collar, the man marching next to me whispered suddenly: "If our wives could see us now! I do hope they are better off in their camps and don't know what is happening to us."

That brought thoughts of my own wife to mind... But my mind clung to my wife's image, imagining it with an uncanny acuteness...  Real or not, her look was more luminous than the sun which was beginning to rise.

Like Frankl, Guido "grasped the meaning of the greatest secret that human poetry and human thought and human belief have to impart: The salvation of a man is through love and in love" (Frankl 37).

Life is beautiful not because the world is pristine- indeed, it is marred with bitterness and unspeakable cruelty- but because there is a glimmer of hope in the eyes of a child, untainted in innocence, and a memory of a wife, to whom her husband once clung in hidden joy. Life is beautiful because love is found in the rough. The hint of light that shines through the darkness is reason enough to live.

EDIT: I commented on Will Drake's "Adding to the Noise."

Good Hunting

Oh how I love a good hunting story. The Bear reminds me of old hunting stories told by my grandfather in his many experiences. This story hit home to me. I hunt, and it was fun to read about the scenarios that went on throughout this part of The Bear. From the calling of the dogs to the rush that comes from hunting the game that has made a reputation of itself, not much has really changed between the 1800s and now as far as hunting goes. Sure, we have far advanced our arsenal, like scopes and cameras, but that only better captures the stories of "the big one". Stalk hunting, at its finest, can connect you with nature and with a untamed feel. This wild chase has been described by some as feeling like part of a nomadic tribe, where the hunter/gatherer philosophy was at an all time high. Needless to say, I enjoyed the Good hunting of Isaac and his companions...


p.s. I commented on jannah lyons post

    So I find myself, once again, remembering at the last minute that I have not posted my blog post. Anywho... I must confess I did not get to actually read much of 'The Bear".  However I did enjoy what little I got to read, and found the story very interesting to hear. I had some very nice classmates help me out :)

   "The Bear" seemed a bit confusing, but then again what Honor's Lit. Assignment isn't somewhat confusing? What I took from the story was that there was a man, Isaac, who did not want to take responsibility for his inheritance. That Isaac also wanted to live a life more imbedded in the natural ways, he wanted to learn to hunt and survive like the Native Americans did.  The is also this bear, Old Ben, who is like the oldest bear, the legend of the forest. Their is almost something human found in him, he's not some ordinary animal, a man must have a level of respect to even see Old Ben. There is Sam Fathers, Boon and Lion.  Through the whole story the author deals with issues of slavery, reconnecting with nature, ownership, and (from my view) responsibility.
     I think Faulkner wanted his readers to question ownership. Can humans really own anything? Can we own the land, animals, other humans, our spouses, or even our children? Why do humans feel comfort from owning things? I think through nature he wanted to show his readers, we don't have to own things, that we can live peaceably without titles or deeds. Also think that he felt we don't need modern technology to solve our problems, which is why he killed off "Old Ben" with a knife instead of a gun.
   I hope this doesn't confuse to many people myself. Does anyone else agree with me? Or offer different perspective?

P.S. commented on Rachel's post

Bear

Callie and I read and read Saturday night trying to understand the confusing work of Faulkner. Then while trying to link together Isaac's name with where it may have come from we had a small revelation. We discussed Abraham's promise land, and that as well as Isaac having an illegitimate brother and the other obvious similarities the BIG one is that Isaac's descendants receive the "Promise Land" after being slaves in Egypt for a little while (*only a couple of generations). And Ishmael does not receive the promised land. And just as quickly as the Israelites receive being to live in this new land flowing with milk and honey they find themselves being punished for neglecting to recognize who brought them to the land and who truly owns the land. This is exemplified as they are carted off to other places (Like Babylon) and then brought back to their original settlements, and today the land of Israel is still brutally fought over by the descendents of Ishmael and Isaac. What an interesting comparison between the middle east land and the land in the United States, however, it all really comes back to the question discussed in class. Can we really own land? Can we really own anything?

Sure, we can walk around with a computer believing that we own it, but how easy is it to lose the computer? Someone could steal it, it could break, but I think in a lot of ways it comforts us as humans to believe that things beyond ourselves can belong to us...

I am pretty sure that was a stream of consciousness rambling.

And I can't figure out how to spell descendents!!

Rabid Run-ons ;)

My opinion coming into class today was that I did not like Faulkner’s stream of consciousness writing because it was hard to follow, and the English language has rules about run-on sentences for a reason. However, the discussion we had in class about the reasons behind this writing style helped me to understand and appreciate it a little more. If you compare Faulkner’s style with poetry, you can see the unformed, uncontained beauty of his ideas. Poetry has some form whereas this style has none, capturing an essence of the wilderness of nature and the human brain on paper. Our brain works this way, but rarely do we write this way because it is so hard to follow. I believe that was Faulkner’s point. We aren’t supposed to know exactly what Ike thinks about all this. Faulkner doesn’t come out and tell us, he gives us the thought process behind it. We can’t follow his thought process but it definitely sparks a personal train of thought. I don’t know if you have ever written in stream of consciousness- I thought about doing it for the blog, but I knew it would be really random and incomprehensible- but it is fun. It captures an essence of humanity that otherwise goes unexplored: how the human brain doesn’t just think along one line of here and now but is constantly pulling from past experiences, senses, hearsay, knowledge, emotions, plans, dreams, to-do lists, worries, relationships, passions… all “talking” at once at any given moment about whatever topic is paramount. Some people organize their thoughts more easily than others, so they don’t notice the semi-chaos taking place in their brain. I, however, have trouble organizing my thoughts into orderly categories unless I write them down. So, the stream of consciousness method gave Faulkner a freedom to go places with his writing that would have been out of place or disjointed otherwise.
P.S. commented on Callie’s “So Much Allegory”

Language as Related to Sin and Our Sin Nature

So maybe this doesn’t exactly pertain to the discussion we had in class, but it kind of does. In class today, Dr. Mitchell made a comment about sin, and I can’t remember what that comment was at the moment, but it led to a discussion after class between Regis, Dr. Talmage, Dr. Mitchell, and I. Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Talmage are of the opinion that language is intrinsically linked to sin. I happen to agree with them.

So the question is, when does the sinful nature develop in a person? The answer, when language develops. Now this is where the theory gets interesting. When does the knowledge of language develop in a person? Is it the same time as we are held accountable for our sins? I believe that our knowledge of language develops before we held accountable for our sins. I could be VERY wrong here. But this is my opinion.

We have knowledge of language and the ability to sin long before we understand what it means to sin. I babysit a family back home with an 18 month old who, last time I was there, was not yet speaking in an understandable way. I observed her interactions with her siblings, mother, and me while I babysat her and was surprised to see that, while she couldn’t speak, she was able to sin. She could understand what we told her to do, but she chose to disobey us. Because she couldn’t speak yet, sometimes it seemed like she couldn’t understand what we told her to do, but after much observation, I saw that she could.

Children begin to understand what you are telling them much earlier than is apparent. It’s the reason babies are able to learn, and use, sign language from about the age of 6 months. So the question is: when does this knowledge of language, turn into a knowledge and awareness of our sin nature? This is a question I can’t necessarily answer. But it’s a question I shall definitely be pondering for a while.

I know this doesn’t necessarily relate to our readings or discussions in class, but I thought it posed some interesting questions. I also thought there were some interesting ideas brought up.

I will see you all in class Thursday and I hope everyone has an incredible Spring Break!

Until next time

~Meghan

P.S. Commented on Josh Spell's post Life is Beautiful

So Much Allegory

The bear is definately one of my favorite pieces of literature we have done in Honors. I love the poetic nature of Faulkner's prose.

I would like to comment on the rich allegorical nature of Faulkner's work. Every little detail with faulkner has a meaning, significance. There is no choice that is made without a reason behind it. Take for instance when Boon asked Ike for a dollar while they were in town. Ike initially was reluctant to give Boon the dollar, but then he decided to. Faulkner could have summed up the whole moment in this one sentence, but instead he goes into great length as to how Ike would not give him the dollar, but then is reminesing about some past event which changes his mind which results in him giving Boon the dollar. Everything in The Bear is like this, there is always a reason as to why something is done the way it is done, Faulkner always provides an expanation. Moreover, there is no part to the story that does not relate to Faulkner's true purpose. Even the bear's footprint fading away into the dirt is given an allegorical meaning. Faulkner speaks of this fading as a "healing," suggesting his belief that letting nature take its course is the best, the therapeudic remedy to all of the problems of the world. Moreover, this theme is continued throughout the whole work. When the Bear is killed Sam Fathers falls over and a few days later, just "quits." It is as if when Old Ben, the symbol of nature and his whole way of life dies, Sam Fathers no longer has any reason to live, or put another way, the death of the Bear sucked the life and purpose out of Sam Fathers. There is no end to the allegorical meaning that we can pull out of Go Down Moses.

PS. I commented on Joy's "Bad Title I know"

Bad title I know - Blog 6

So I finished reading the Bear and must say that it did not end the way I thought it would. The story had many details that can catch you up. I thought it was interesting though because I looked at the word healing like Dr. Abernathy said and it is not the same type of healing we would think of. The tree had decayed into the ground and the tin can had been covered with what was natural. The end of this story was a bit boring compared to the start. Not to mention everyone is dying and going slightly mental. I actually liked chapter 4 despite its tediousness. Overall it was an alright story. I just hope I am ready for this quiz! See you guys on Tuesday.

PS - Amanda G

Moral of the story: get pumped about heaven

I know my post last week was about The Hedge, but there are a few other ideas that I've been thinking about that might make more sense to me if I put them in writing. I understand that the reading was not necessarily a Christian allegory, but for my purposes, it will be.

The question we were asked at the end of class is really what got me thinking about this idea. "Would you be happy on the other side of the hedge?" When I first thought about this, my answer was indefinitely yes. However, if I get down to some of the details about that situation, my answer becomes a little foggy.

The garden, in this case representative of the garden of eden or of heaven, was characterized more than anything by its lack of progress or even purpose. The road began in the garden and ended in it, and was seen as altogether pointless because of that. However, there are several questions I began to struggle with when I thought about if I would be happy in the garden or not. Its true that in the garden, all the struggle, pain, and hardship of striving to progress would not exist, but is that because it is a better place or simply because those within do not strive for such ends?

To answer this, I think that both are true. Because of that, I think an interesting perspective to take on this reading was that Forster was making an allegory about the human perception of heaven. As Christians, we sometimes doubt that heaven will be all it's made out to be. We see this possibility of the rest of eternity spent with God, and, I'm ashamed to admit, we can only focus on the fact that its just a really long time and that anything, no matter how amazing, can get old after too long.

I know that sounds really bad so I'll try and wrap this up. Like I said when talking about Heidegger, I think our problem is our perception. We are only humans and thus can only grasp things within our understanding. It would make sense then, that a concept like an eternity with and infinitely loving and wise God would be far beyond our understanding. This sounds almost like a cop-out, but I believe we sometimes doubt whether or not we would like it on the other side of the hedge, or whether heaven will be that great, simply because we truly can't comprehend the possibility that it will be infinitely greater than anything we could imagine. Knowing that, the whole argument pretty much becomes moot. Once we get to the other side of the hedge, we'll know what we've been missing, and God will have been right all along.

ps i commented on Amanda's

Oh hey, Faulkner. We meet again.

My first encounter with Faulkner in As I Lay Dying was less than pleasant. The Bear was a little more BEARable, but not by much.

I didn't really get much out of this reading besides man's attempt to control nature. Then once nature is conquered, we realize it was not our's to conquer in the first place. Isaac (and Faulkner) follow the Native American ideology about land ownership and respect for nature. Old Ben was majestic and powerful and seemed to have authority over all nature. Isaac had opportunities to kill Old Ben but didn't because he respected him.The hunters even seemed to think they had an understanding with him, as if they could negotiate with a bear!  Isaac believed that nature was for the benefit of everyone and should not be owned by any one person, and hunting Old Ben with the intention to kill was an attempt to own and conquer him.

Commented on Lane's

The Bear...

"He seemed to see it entire with a child’s complete divination before he ever laid eyes on either—the doomed wilderness whose edges were being constantly and punily gnawed at by men with axes and plows who feared it because it was wilderness, men myriad and nameless even to one another in the land where the old bear had earned a name, through which ran not even a mortal animal but an anachronism, indomitable and invincible, out of an old dead time, a phantom, epitome and apotheosis of the old wild life at which the puny humans swarmed and hacked in a fury of abhorrence and fear, like pygmies about the ankles of a drowsing elephant: the old bear solitary, indomitable and alone, widowered, childless, and absolved of mortality—old Priam reft of his old wife and having outlived all his sons."

I think this passage really goes along with the theme of our recent discussions. In the allegory 'The Other Side of the Hedge,' there is a stark contrast between the road of progress and the garden of tranquility. Faulkner likewise contrasts the 'men with axes and plows who feared it because it was wilderness,' with the raw power and mystery of the bear. Though it almost sounds like Faulkner is a hippy at first glance, one can see that he is getting at the real beauty of the earth, the original intent of and power of wilderness. It's as if he is ok and is promoting the wilderness. Both Faulkner and Forster seem to have similar stances on progress, they perhaps have a different view of the alternative. Forster's garden is vastly different from the kind of forest Faulkner portrays.

So I would like to offer the difference between the road, the garden, and the forest; I call forest.

--Commented on Tori's, yo.

Is the "Grass" Really "Greener"???

Would you be happy on the other side of the hedge? This is question that I thought about for a couple days after discussing Forster’s story in class last week.

To answer this question, I look at our society today and see that the people in it would probably never be satisfied on either side of the hedge. On one side, Forster shows people running a rat race to try and find something great at the end of the road only to never get anywhere which would make people of our day extremely disappointed. After crossing through the hedge, we see people who are stagnant and never get anything done. These people seem happy and relaxed, but this also would not be an acceptable lifestyle in our postmodern time.

Therefore, no matter what side someone from our day is on, chances are, they would not be thrilled with either option.

PS I commented on Cameron White’s “Isn’t It Ironic”

Through the Hedge, the Moat and onto....

      GAS PRICES ARE STUPID! That is why the narrator left the Road! Well not really, but I just needed to get that off my chest.
      So anyways from the reading, I got that the Road represented life, our fast-paced self absorbed life. The Hedge in a way represented Christ, and the Moat represented Baptism. However to me the other side of the hedge, represents heaven in a way. It seems perfect and endless, also time stops there. The pedometer the narrator carries cannot work on the other side of the hedge.
      My question is does the other side of the hedge represent the garden of Eden or heaven? I know that it represents where man first started off. It is the origins of mankind, our urge to 'walk' represents some downfall. We leave 'paradise' the walk a road which never ends, it continually loops and doubles over. We leave a lush green land of plenty, for a dusty dry burdensome road. We yearn for our own discovery, only to discover what we left behind.
   Maybe this is confusing but this is some of what I got out of it.

To Narnia!!!! Through That Hedge!!!

Was I the only one who thought a little bit about Narnia when the narrator was going through the hedge? Pushing through the coats that turn into trees to get to the back of the wardrobe. Pushing through the branches to get through the hedge. I'm just saying I see a little similarity there. Then when they both get through to where they're going they find lands that are the exact opposite of where they are. After being pulled out of the water the narrator finds himself in a fertile green land opposite of the dusty cement sidewalk he was on before. Lucy finds herself in a land of ice and snow that is the opposite of the green lands that she was living in before. The man finds himself having to adjust to people not constantly being in competition with each other while Lucy has to learn to deal with talking animals. There is no direct correlation from one to the other at all but I thought they did share a little in common in a strange way so I thought I would share it with everyone.

I commented on Justin's post

.................

I almost always end up doing my blogs on the class discussion we have, but I do want to talk about The Other Side of the Hedge. I liked that there were some sort of Biblical illusions that where possible, with the garden being much like The Garden of Eden. I guess what I took out of it was that it wasn’t necessarily supposed to be strictly Biblical, but that it had those elements without that being its sole purpose. I think the main focus is the idea of progress and how it’s this never ending cycle. Humankind can’t really escape this need to continually progress, and that’s what the narrator proves when he returns back to the road. In the garden there is no progress and that’s why when he enters his pedometer stops because there is no real progress to track. There is mention that there was a gun that someone brought in and it wouldn’t work, and I thought it possible that it was meant to subtly reference the same concept that progress can’t be made in the garden. What I’m getting at is when you shoot a gun there’s an end and a purpose to it and I think that’s why it won’t work there. That’s just my take on what happened.

The Bear is hard for me to follow, I’m not opposed to hunting by any means but I don’t fully understand the lingo. With its whole hunting theme it’s just not my cup of tea, I first started it and I was reminded of reading The Nick Adams Stories in high school and I absolutely hated that semester of English where we read all these hunting, fishing, stereo- typically masculine stories that, might I add, had very few female characters at all. Sorry to go off about Nick Adams but I really hated that little unit we did… just know I have a very serious nickname for them that I shall not say here.

-commented on Meghans

I loved our discussion about The Hedge and how Ms. Bear discussed the allegories that lie within it. The irony of how we can search our entire lives for something "more" and when we find what it is we think we are looking for, we realize it still isn't enough. The fact that we have a desire to search endlessly instead of being content is, in my opinion, the definition of original sin. When we sin, it is our way of saying that we are not content with the way our lives are at the present. The desire for contentment can only be satisfied through a relationship with God, and those who are inside of the Hedge seem to be realizing this, while those on the outside constantly run to find more and more of nothing. If we could find contentment with what God has given us, we could live our lives with a more definite purpose and sense of joy. I think that living with joy and contentment is really how God created us to be, and that we have perverted this is the ultimate sin.

P.S. posted on Cameron White's

Going On a Bear Hunt!

    I have to be honest, I didn't really like “The Bear” (not “The Bear” as in  Dr. Bear who is quite cool, but the “The Bear” as in the reading by W. Faulkner which is not-so-cool). After a few pages, it started to remind me of when I had to read The Call of the Wild in 9th grade: extremely boring and reminding me of the other more interesting things I’d rather be reading, like The Hunger Games! So instead of typing about surviving in the wilderness, I’m going to type about No Exit, which I thoroughly enjoyed! 
I think I mentioned in a previous blog how I like it when things from different areas of my life line up with something I learned in a class. Last Sunday at North Mobile, Pastor Ed started talking about how we are always looking for something else to fill the void that only God can fill. That made me think about when we were discussing “No Exit”. How each of the three people were looking for someone to affirm what they had done while they were alive. They were all looking for someone to tell them that they mattered even though they were dead. The pastor said that unless you are profoundly sure of your own worth, you will always be looking for someone or something to affirm you. The only way to gain that certainty is through the love of God. I know that Sartes probably wasn’t a Christian, but I think he’s kind of opening his readers mind to a greater truth. It is impossible to find your true worth through human beings or actions. It’s like Inez said to Estelle, “Suppose the mirror started telling lies?” You could never truly trust another human to tell you of the true you. The only One who could do that is the one who built the model and wrote the manual-- the Creator. Sort of feels like I’m rambling, but that’s what was on my mind tonight.


P.S.: I commented on Jamie's "The Road vs. The Other Side"

Seeing God in The Bear, at Least in My Mind.

“Because he recognised now what he had smelled in the huddled dogs and tasted in his own saliva, recognised fear as a boy, a youth, recognizes the existence of love and passion and experience which is his heritage but not yet his patrimony, from entering by chance the presence or perhaps merely the bedroom of a woman who has loved and been loved by many men. So I will have to see him, he thought, without dread or even hope. I will have to look at him.”

Originally I had thought to focus on Faulkner’s use of descriptive words in The Bear, of which there are many, since I spent all night last night writing about descriptive words in poetry. But then, this passage caught my attention, and stuck with me. The emotion he seems to be experiencing me, reminds me of the emotions we experience when we as Christians think about meeting God. It seems that he is yearning to see the bear, even if he isn’t going to kill it. It’s almost an obsession with seeing the majesty of the creature.

It’s the same with us and God. We long to see God, and yet we fear Him because His majesty is more than we can comprehend. Yet, like and unlike the boy, when we think about seeing God there is no dread, but there is hope. We hope for something we know nothing about, we hope to see our creator. The boy made the decision that he HAD to see the bear, but there was no assurance he would. We as Christians know that we WILL see God one day since we have accepted the gift He gave us by sending His Son to die for us.

I realize that this is probably not what Faulkner was trying to get at with that passage, but these are the thoughts that popped into my head when I read the passage, and they refused to leave me alone. I’m looking forward to discussing this tomorrow, because this is a very intriguing story that will be fun to delve into.

Until next time,

~Meghan

P.S. I commented on Will’s post “Control”

Control

While there is a plethora of meanings in "The Bear," one seems especially important. Faulkner places an evident difference between the narrator's thoughts when living in nature and when observing man's creations. In this passage, he is experiencing nature:

The boy listened, to no ringing chorus strong and fast on a free scent but a moiling yapping an octave too high and with something more than indecision and even abjectness in it which he could not yet recognise, reluctant, not even moving very fast, taking a long time to pass out of hearing, leaving even then in the air that echo of thin and almost human hysteria, abject, no sense of a fleeing unseen smoke-colored shape.

(Chapter 1)

This is one long sentence. He uses this style quite often, but it definitely in stark contrast to the form used when addressing the human accounts and records in chapter 4. It is also an obvious difference when compared to the dialogue so often used between human characters. This parallels the issue of human control that Faulkner is driving at throughout the short story. Humans desire to cut down and dissect nature in order to control it.

Ad augusta per angusta,

Will Drake

P.S. Commented on Hunter's "William Faulkner's Sausage Festival!"

"BIG" "FAT" "UGLY" BEAR

I am not really up for the challenge to decipher meaning behind "The Bear", in fact I have to be honest I did do a little internet research to help me understand exactly what this bear thing is all about. And after all that internet research I can't say that I am a whole lot more ready for understanding Faulkner. I felt a lot like I was running through thick sticky mud. It wasn't that it was so unpleasant to read as much as it is a thick and murky and sticky and there is a lot of it. Further, I find/found (my tenses are getting CRAZY) it hard to draw conclusions after reading this piece. However, I suppose everyone who made an attempt at reading "The Bear" this week would really understand and begin to wonder if I am not just writing nonsensical phrases so as to lengthen my blog post....OR to make Hunter laugh. But you are all wrong, I am using this extremely long introduction to think about what I am really going to write about-

I have never had a desire to hunt. My sister likes to shoot things. I think this in some ways is due to some sort of teen angst that I missed out on, but none the less her and my father share a kindred enjoyment of guns and such. In Faulkner's "The Bear" hunting is pivotal. The characters are only explored during their time hunting. The "narrator" begins very young and progresses into a young man. I believe Faulkner uses this common avenue to paint a vivid picture of simplistic life which as the years pass on becomes more and more modern. In some ways the reason they are able to kill the Bear is because there isn't room left in the world for such a tall majestic unknown. In some ways our culture has knowledge at its fingertips and we no longer marvel at the majesty of the unknown.

I commented on "The Road" by Mallory Searcy

It's always a little hard to blog when there hasn't been a class discussion but I will try!

Despite all the hunting lingo in "The Bear" I have really enjoyed it. When I say enjoyed it I mean I was pretty much biting my fingers during the part when they finally catch the bear and all the drama therein.

That being said- I'm not sure how to respond as far as the literary sociological significance at this point. This definitely seems to be one of Faulkner's cleaner readings in my experience with him. In addition to that experience, he seems to be interested in the human phychi and what the interaction with humans (or lack there of) seems to do to someone.

One interesting thing I noticed was the interracial relationships that were displayed. This seemed like this would have not been common and also, it was hard for me to distinguish who was who. To me, all of the characters treated each other well. Knowing that Faulkner was a white man who spent a good portion of his life in Mississippi, which as we know is where a lot of oppression to our black brothers took place, it is surprising to see the black men of the story in such a equal and positive light.

commented on Rachel's

Isn't it Ironic??

Before I say my peace about "The Other Side of the Hedge", I would like to give a shout-out to Ms. Bethany Bear for leading us in a very productive and thoughtful class discussion. It would be poor desicion and lack of vision to not have her on board as one of the Lit. Professors. Kudos, Ms. BB.

As far as the text goes, I noticed something about it that I didn't the first time I read it. Isn't it ironic how the turn of events played out for the narrator? He starts off by giving us the impression that he was happy that he did not end up like his brother. He claims to have walked more wisely. The idea to notice here is how the rest of the story plays out. When the narrator gets to the other side of the hedge, he continually sees the people of the other side singing. The fact that there was a man to help him through this new area for most of the remainder of the story leads me to wonder if this was intentional of Forster. Then at the end, we notice that the narrator is being aided by the very person he went left behind in pursuit of a "wiser" travel, his brother...

p.s. I commented on Susan's Life on the Road.

William Faulkner's Sausage Festival!

"Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood."
-George S. Patton

As of this moment, not a single person has commented on William Faulkner's The Bear so I guess that duty falls to me. Yes, duty, now that is the appropriate word, isn't it? For those of you who have actually been reading this piece, masculinity is front and center for the entire duration of the piece. Maybe I've been misreading it, but I have barely seen an ounce of feminimity in the entire story, and with good reason. The story is about a boy being instructed on how to hunt-that's the story on its most basic level. He learns to go to the tree stand on his own, how to handle a gun, what not to do in the woods, etc. He also learns about the various creatures that live in the woods that the protagonists call home and the dogs they use to help them hunt. But of course, that's just the surface level-what I see is all about what it means to be a man and the measure of a man. Of course, what the heck is that even supposed to mean anymore?

Consider what the current perceptions of manhood are. TV shows portray a man as either a business and pleasure minded scoundrel (Mad Men) or, on the opposite, completely lame and spineless (Samantha Who?). There's the infamous commercial for Dr. Pepper 10 in which a group of militant men race through an action packed jungle talking about how manly their drink is and end the commercial with the words "Dr. Pepper 10-it's not for women!" as though manhood is some exclusive club. Manhood is equally dividied musically, with thugs and sex fiends on one end and more courageous and selfless heroes on the other. What is the measure of a man?

The main way that Faulkner expresses masculinity is through his language. It's very dry but very descriptive, and he doesn't skip on a lot of details. To me his writing style is like an old leather bomber jacket-wrinkly, smells funny, durable, and many stories to tell. It will never fail you, it is always dependable, and there is a strong, silent dignity about it that's hard to replace. That also serves to describe Sam and the hunters that teach Ike in the story. They're battle hardened, they're capable, and what drives them the most is a sense of duty. They want to teach Ike how to hunt so he can carry on the tradition. They want to protect the land and follow its rules because it's their home. There's no need for romantic or soft-spoken language in here, because the men in this story don't hold Ike's hand when they're teaching him to hunt, but they are determined to make sure he follows through, because that's duty. If loyalty is the Biblical hallmark of womanhood, duty is the likewise hallmark of manhood, and though Faulkner may not be writing with that specifically in mind, the prose speaks the truth.

Thank you for reading, feel free to comment as you please. I commented on Anna Rhodes' Let's Go Off-Road!

Let's Go Off-Road!

History goes through time in waves. Ideas enter the general consciousness one minute and in the next they are gone. Progress is one of those ideas and is the central focal point in Forester’s Over the Hedge. One aspect of the poem that struck me was the main character’s mind-set of progress. He almost seemed brainwashed. He felt that he must continue to move on. He only stopped walking because he was so tired; his stopping was “shocking” to him. Lost of all motivation he laid on the ground praying that he might give up. He could not seem to give up, but there was something inside of him that wanted to. Once he was in the garden, he still did not want to give in. It was not until the very end when he took a drink from the garden, that he finally accepted the idea of life off the road. This is pivotal. The character not only turned away from the never stopping mindset of the road, he was faced the new idea of success found in the garden that he could choose to accept of refuse. In the garden something is worthy just because it is. The traveler was faced with the decision to stay on the road, which he was familiar with, or stay in the garden with a new idea of success to get adjusted to.

The allegory reminds me so much of our world today. We are constantly moving forward, yet we don’t seem to understand those who aren’t moving according to the idea we have of success. The daughter who has to stay home and take care of her sick mother—is she successful according to the road? People like her are those who aren’t on the road. Does that mean she is not successful? What would those on the road think about her? And what would the garden people say?

This leads me to the question: What is my definition of success? What makes life successful? It’s easy for those of us living in the real world today to get caught up in the hype and dust of the road until we find ourselves at the Hedge too.

P.S. I commented on Callie's Blog

just call me indecisive... but not really ;)

I really enjoyed our discussion in class on Thursday about The Other Side of the Hedge. Ms. Bear asked us to think whether we would rather be on the road or inside the hedge, but I don’t think I could choose. I don’t want either! Obviously, the hedge is more restful but there isn’t any direction to life. On the other hand, the road just leads in circles and you are constantly striving to an unknown goal. The road, after seeing that it leads nowhere, is really not an option. However, if we didn’t know that it was an unrewarding path of futility, I think many of us would choose the road. It has been ingrained in us to work for something, anything, and everything. Perhaps that’s why some people have a problem overcoming pride to accept salvation- they are still trying in some way to work for it, or to make God love them more.
In the poem, it also speaks of the hedge as a barrier. I think many people lose the joy and peace of salvation because they start looking at all the rules, and faith becomes legalistic and a list of what you can and can’t do. Yes there are rules, but when you desire God before anything else, then doing right isn’t something you have to think about, it’s a natural overflow of the heart. In this way, the hedge shouldn’t begin to feel like a prison, because it’s what you want to do- not what you have to do.
On a final note… I liked Ms. Bear. I do not like “The Bear.” I couldn’t find anything to blog about with that... and the run-on sentences are driving me crazy! Ok, I’ll be done with that rant and this blog so I can get back to reading… Class tomorrow should be fun :)
P.S. Commented on Mallory’s The Road
*my comment explains further why I wouldn’t choose either of Forster’s options

Life on the Road

In E.M. Foster's The Other Side of the Hedge the man on the road mentions his brother in the very beginning. He says, "At first I thought I was going to be like my brother, whom I had had to leave by the roadside a year or two round the corner. He had wasted his breath on singing, and his strength on helping others. But I had traveled more wisely, and now it was only the monotony of the highway that oppressed me." This quote got me thinking, what kind of horrible world would I live in if helping someone in need was considered a weakness, and expressing joy through singing was frowned upon. Then I thought, it's that sort of the opinion that the world is headed to now? While there is still good in the world, there seems to be a lot more bad. In a lot of ways we are already like the people running around along a road that leads to goodness knows where. Fortunately, that is hope that for Christians that one day they will get to the other side.

I commented on Jamie Kilpatricks's post

Road Vs. The Other Side

Would I rather live on the road, or the other side of the hedge? I have been wondering for a while now. I'm a science girl. I love looking for answers and finding new ways to do things, so at first it would seem only logical that the road is where I belong. Could I ever be truly happy in a world where there is nothing to accomplish and nothing to discover? The more I thought about it though, the more that I was sure that, if faced with the decision, I would most definitely choose to live on the other side. Maybe I'm crazy, but I honestly think that I would be happy. The idea of living in a place where I didn't have to worry about success is really appealing to me. To look over and see a boy running just for the sake of wanting to run or to hear a woman sing just for the sake of wanting to sing is an amazing thought to me. Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but the other side of the hedge sounds pretty good to me.

p.s. Commented on Callie's "Man's Search for Meaning... in a Hedge"

The Road

At breakfast this morning my youngest brother told me about the allegory he is studying in his English class. I told him we just studied a little bit of allegory in Honors but I don't like it. Then i realized, I was probably making a general statement about Allegory when what i really meant was "I don't want to live on either side of the Hedge."

At the end of class on thursday, Ms. Bear asked us to think about which side of the Hedge we would want to live on. I still contend with what Will Drake said in class, that our culture has trained us for the Road and we would be unsatisfied through the Hedge. But i also think that i wouldn't want to live on the road either. I drew an example of what i imagine the road and the other side of the hedge look like, but it was in Mac's equivalent of Microsoft paint, so I don't know how pretty it is. Regardless, the point of the illustration is that it is a terrible, mindless circle. There really isn't any point on either side of it. There has to be something higher, something more, something Other Than. Otherwise, it doesn't much matter which side we are on. We either sit and do nothing, or we run and do nothing. sounds fairly miserable to me.

ps- i also added the moat (in blue) for good measure.

I commented on amanda gaster's blog:)

Man's Search for Meaning...in a Hedge

In The Other Side of the Hedge, Forster really presented an interesting worldview. Those "of the road," though they sought something greater and better, were really getting nowhere. There whole idea of progress was just an illusion in which they were trapped. However, the life on the other side of the hedge does not look much more appealing than the first. The people just sleep under the stars, living a simple life like "cattle." They are simply Being, and with this they are quite content. The problem that the main character had with life "on the other side of the hedge" is that it is not going anywhere. The people are content with life as is and thus they are not seeking greater ideals or improvement. Also, in class we discussed how one might think life on this side of the hedge rather boring.

I find this view of the other side of the hedge to be very interesting. Man constantly searches throughout his entire life for meaning, purpose, something greater. There is constantly talk of the gods, and of utopias and heaven - a place where we will all be content and satisfied with life "as is." However, when we actually see such a society drawn, such as Forster's "other side of the hedge" we automatically begin to look down upon it. The people to us seem ignorant for not wanting to advance their position in life; we have fears of the boredom that must be present in such a place. Why such a great contradiction? It would seem that there is a great conflict within man as to where meaning/ contentment lie.. for he would like to be content with life as is, but on the other he feels that meaning cannot be found where he is but only as the product of hard work.

I commented on Joy's Reminiscence of Thurs

Thursday Reminisce

Okay, so I had already written my blog for last week when the reading for Thursday was posted, but the rules say we can blog about what was discussed in class on Thursday! I really enjoyed Dr. Bear. She knows her English and her Greek!!! (:
“For we of the road do not admit in conversation that there is another side at all.” This passage is marked off in bold on my text. When talked about how the story is very allegorical. We also touched on how it could be assumed that the writer is making reference to some biblical principles. This passage, if taken in a biblical perspective, could relate to unbelievers in the sense that many people who are head strong about there not being a God will typically not admit in a conversation that they have wondered at the thought of there actually being a Divine Creator. Sadly, some believers will not admit in conversation to believing in the spiritual realm (in demons and satan). Let me state here, satan and demons are very much so real and they desire to attach both believers and keep non-believers from hearing the truth. We as believers though have to be willing to know what the truth is so that we can “admit in conversation” the truth. “What I [Jesus] tell you in the dark say in the light, and what you hear whispered proclaim on the housetop.” We ought to be speaking the truth boldly, no lying or cowering back from it. I am going to stop here because I could keep going with this topic.
Dr. Bear did a great job and I enjoyed her teaching on Thursday!

Ps - Callie George

-The Other Side-

Thanks guys so much who worked me into the audition schedule yesterday and letting me embarrass myself completely with my terrible acing skills. Ah well I guess it's good to be able to laugh at yourself every once in awhile.

   I read The Other Side of the Hedge the other day and this maybe be way off but it kind of reminded me of Pilgrims Progress. That story was in my mind the whole time I was reading this one. It was similar in the way that both characters are on this journey to heaven. Both encounter characters that struggle with staying on the path and could be a discouragement to him. Both journeys are long and painful but are completed with the hope of something better at the end.Is this the story of our lives??

Commented on Tori's:)

02/16/2012

I would just like to say that I am personally very excited abut class tomorrow! I really enjoyed this reading.
There is one thing that really stands out to me. It might not be on track with what was meant to come across, but I really liked it. When the writer is setting up the story, he tells about his brother. He says his brother "wasted his breath on singing, and his strength on helping others." He goes on to say that he had traveled "more wisely" and about the monotony of the highway. He even points out the cracks in the road that he has seen over and over.

The only thing I could think of when I read this was the two sides of a local church. On one side you have the church member that is always at church. They have their same seat they sit in every week and they talk to the same people. They like to know what songs will be sung and what will be preached. They like being comfortable in their predictable lives.
Then you have the other side that wants to break away from this cycle of going through the motions and simply "doing church". They want to, as the reading said, focus their "breath on singing, and [their] strength on helping others".

Thoughts?

"We won't be satisfied with anything ordinary, we won't be satisfied at all."


commented on Anna's "Drawn to the Hedge"

Casting stones

So let me say first of all, being out of class stinks. And being sick stinks. Being out keeps me from gleaning from the observations in the classroom and hearing different perspectives on our reading. With that being said, I want to give my two cents about some of the things I saw in No Exit.

One of the more obvious things to mention is Inez, Garcin, and Estelle. These people are eternally doomed to be in the same room as one another. They all are trying to hide the reason each is in the room, but they eventually fess up.What I think is interesting about this situation is that even after death, pride and arrogance are still among these folks. They even look for mirrors in the room to get away from each other's constant stare of judgement. I think Sarte intended them to be this way to help illustrate his straight-forward approach in philosophy. It boils down to the fact that they had to face the truth, and could no longer hide behind themselves or their wrong doings.

p.s. commented on Hope??? by NickHampton

Oh, I can burp my ABCs...A...B...C...

I'm sorry. I couldn't stop myself from quoting Hammy (Over the Hedge).

"Give me life, with its struggles and victories, with its failure and hatreds, with its deep moral meaning and its unknown goal!"

I admit that I certainly feel the tension of this story on a daily basis. I want rest, I want to give up, I want to cave under pressure and stress. But even in some of my weakest moments, I demand the struggles for the victories, I demand failure to feel defeated and loathe it, I want to uncover the meaning of it all, but to what end! Can I glory in this unknown goal? This story has such an ecclesiastical undertone from the Other Side's point of view. The toil of the Road People is vanity and meaningless to them. But for the narrator, so does the Other Side.

"It is the thought of that that makes us strive to excel, each in his own way, and gives us an impetus which is lacking with you."

But how on earth can this give him an impetus, momentum to move forward? How can we strive toward something we do not know of? Better yet, why? What is it about this goal that we seek? Is it that we hope to know the goal someday by achieving it? Is the giving up horrifying because we lose the goal?

Questions for questions, I've got some questions...

COMMENTED ON ANNA'S

Hope???

I began to think about some of the things we talked about in class about No Exit, and one thing really stuck out to me when i reread the story. There is a line on page 10 when Inez is talking about being afraid and she says, "What would be the use? There was some point in being afraid before, while one still had hope." If we are to look at the play without using our Christian views, what would they have had hope in, even if they were alive?

Without a Christian belief, there would be no hope, the only thing they could have had hope in was the fact that they were not yet dead. So, whether or not we are supposed to look at No Exit with our Christian views, I see no way that we could get by without them.

P.S. I posted on Danielle's...

When Living Becomes Life

As childish as it may seem, when I read this passage, the first thing I was reminded of was The Last Battle, the last book in The Chronicles of Narnia. At the very end of the book, long story short, everyone pretty much dies. Then, they are all together walking in a place a lot like what was described. They later come to find out that they all did actually die and where they are now is heaven. Another long story short, the way heaven is described is unbelievable.

I thought of this because the major undertone I got from the reading was that life as God intended it is so much greater than anything we could ever imagine. God had it right from the beginning, we were to live in the garden in perfect fellowship with Him. Now when we live our lives, all too often we try to find happiness in meaning in life apart from God. And the truth of it is that we may find bits of it here and there, but never anything close to what God intended. God intended to have perfect fellowship with us, He designed us for that end, so for us to truly find happiness and meaning in life, it can only happen through seeking that fellowship with God, through seeking life as God intended it.

To make this relevant to the reading, I would say that the man represents the ideals of our society today, of striving to reach a goal we know nothing about. The man was absolutely convinced that he had it all figured out and was on the way to somewhere important when in reality, he was missing what mattered, and even more so what was real, the whole time. He lived to reach the end he thought would matter, all the while missing out on experiencing life as it was intended.

p.s. i commented on Tori's

No Exit. O.O

No Exit.
I really enjoyed reading No Exit, I think that how completely twisted it was made it sort of intriguing.

I liked how each character played into the other ones weaknesses and they’re all so twisted in different ways it just makes for one big hot mess. I guess I just want to talk about how the different people relate to one another.

Garcin treated his wife horribly, and he did it for the sake of breaking her down. Inez did the same thing with her lover and with her cousin. Then there’s Estelle who has an insuppressible need to be wanted for the sake of being wanted, which is cruel because she strings along men with the intent to fulfill her own selfish need to feel like she’s desirable. I look at her cruelty and apply it to the others, like when Estelle is seeing Peter dancing with Olga she says “He belonged to me”, and I think that’s how all three of them viewed other people. As belonging that they could easily toy with and toss away and I think that’s the horror of their cruelty that they have no concern for life outside of themselves. I think that’s ultimately why they are in hell. Maybe that’s why hell, for them, is other people. They had no concern for toying with other people and that’s what they have to face for eternity: not just other people but other people who are just like them.

But what’s weird to me is that even though, in my opinion, they are so terrible to people they all are dependent on validation from other people. Estelle needs for Garcin to validate her physically, as a woman. She needs him to want her and to have his companionship in order to feel validated. At first Garcin needs Estelle to validate him in the sense he needed her to confirm that he wasn’t a coward, and then he needed the same thing from Inez. And Inez is probably the biggest mess of all because first off I feel like she needs to inflict pain on other people because cruelty is her identity, but she also seems to need to prey on impressionable women and kind of woo them into loving her in order to be satisfied. Like with Estelle, she acts like she has to have her and I think that is because of her need to draw her in… kind of like a spider and a fly.

Drawn to the Hedge

“ A little puff of air revived me. It seemed to come from the hedge; and, when I opened my eyes, there was a glint of light through the tangle of boughs and the dead leaves.” (The Other Side of the Hedge sections three and four).

What good lines! These lines are rich in meaning and set a foundation for the rest of the story. First off, the narrator lays down too tired to go on. He prays that he might give up. Remember however that in other parts of the story he is very adamant about how he must continue on the road and persevere, but there is something inside of him that is maybe telling him something different. Maybe he actually does want to quit despite what he says.

Also, it seems that he is drawn towards the other side of the hedge despite himself, “In my weak morbid state, I longed to force my way in, and see what was on the other side” (Section four). The “puff of air,” gave him a taste of the other side and he couldn’t resist. The narrator went into the hedge despite the seemingly taboo views of the hedge. He made sure no one was watching, “For we of the road do not admit in conversation that there is another side at all.” He seems to belong to “those of the road.” That leads you to think that maybe he isn’t as trustworthy as you might think. Something is going on here. I could go on and on, but it would be beyond the scope of the blog. Here’s my ending statement: excellent read, and it just gets better the closer you look at it.

P.S. I commented on Will's "The Other Side"

The Never Ending Race

Despite the fact that this allegory had many religious undertones, I couldn't help but also look at from the perspective of society in general whether or not it involved our faith. I pictured something along the lines of a businessman, maybe an insurance salesman (think Mr. Incredible), sitting behind a cubicle and writing up proposals or whatever, always striving to Earn the next promotion or raise. We all know this scenario that Hollywood often portrays as a numb, empty existence and a father who forgets his son's soccer game. However Hollywoodified this scene is, there is a lot of truth to it. Often, we go through with the monotony of life , living solely for survival and advancement, climbing that ladder and running the race with no finish line, that we forget to just stop aiming for our selfish goals. As Christians, what are we striving so desperately for if this world is only our temporary home? Sometimes I think God is watching us from Heaven screaming, "Why do you care so much about trivial accomplishments?! Don't you know that eternity with Me is your ultimate goal?"

P.s. commented on Danielle's

Drip...Drip...Drip

I've been reading many different posts about how my fellow honors students were surprised at how mild hell had been in No Exit. While this was my initial reaction to the reading, I began to realize that this hell could actually be much more torturous than what it seemed at first. Before I begin, I must first say that there is no way we as humans can comprehend how terrible hell could possibly be. Now that we have that out of the way, we can begin.

Drip...Drip...Drip

The hell in No Exit was not the physically painful place with the torture racks and demons running about a cave that seems to have flames com up from nowhere. It was a much more sinister place, a locked room with a few sofas. While it seemed at first that Garcin would be by himself, he was soon joined by Inez, then Estelle.

Drip...Drip...Drip

Ever heard of Chinese water torture? If not, let me sum it up. Chinese water torture is simply placing someone, tied, in a chair and slowly dripping water on their foreheads. There is no physical torture, it's all mental. at first, you don't mind the drops of water. After a while, the drops begin to feel like pebbles, then rocks. After a couple of hours, it feels like someone is dropping hammers on your head. Depending on the person, at about 3 hours it feels like hand grenades raining down on you. People can only handle so much.

Drip...Drip...Drip

This was the hell that Sartre was going for: that slow, agonizing mental anguish that beats out physical torture. People have been known to go insane from it. That's why the characters were so irritating to each other. After so long, they would be fed up with each other, then it would only get worse.

Drip...Drip...Drip

~~Cody Martin

PS- Commented on Tori's The Never Ending Race

Hell is other people?

      "No Exit" intrigued me, left me going, "Uh... Interesting".  Hell is other people?

      Although, I fully disagree with the author's hell, it was a very interesting picture. After all other people can very well seem like hellish torturers. I got chills thinking about be locked inside a room forever with two people who knew my flaws, and knew how to use that against me. It does seem like a hellish picture, forever never having rest, constantly having those people jabbing at you.  What was the author's meaning here?
   Was he trying to make a point? All three of the characters were cowards or disrespected human life. I mean a mother drowned her own baby! They also all did it for their selfish selves, either to protect themselves or empower themselves.  To me, I felt the author was trying to say, respect other humans no matter who or what they are.

P.S. Commented on Kelsey's post

Huis Clos

What troubled me most about No Exit was what put them in hell, and why are they together?

If we are assuming that hell is the result of their wrong actions, but we take God out of the equation, what is the standard of justice?

If Sartre was an existentialist, it makes me think that they are put together for the purpose of dealing with their life and their past. They need to take responsibility for their actions and break free of their inauthentic existences. They need to face their true selves--and though there are no physical mirrors, the people they are put with reflect their authentic self. We see this hinted at with Estelle and Inez in a physical sense and we also see it with Garcin and Inez as they identify with each over their cruelty.

I think they are to stay there because they chose it for themselves. They chose to live inauthentically in their life on earth and as a result chose their own hell. In their death they will eternally choose their punishment and never be able to leave.

Commented on Tori's.

This is the first time in a while that I have read a narrative allegory, and I loved it. The line that hit me the most was, "Every achievement is worthless unless it is a link in the chain of development." This was thought-provoking for me personally because it made me contemplate what I really thought was an achievement. We cannot take any earthly thing with us to Heaven, so all achievements must only be worth something if they further the Kingdom. If they do not further the Kingdom, then their worth is lost in the span of eternity. If we cannot take these achievements with us, then there is no real worth in them because all things in this life will be wiped away to make way for the new Kingdom. For once, I think I actually understood some of the deeper meaning on the first read through.

P.S. Commented on Lane's

Alive and Moving

"Somebody crowd me with love, somebody force me to care,
somebody let me come through, I'll always be there,
as frightened as you, to help us survive, being alive!"
-Stephen Sondheim, Being Alive from Company

Maybe this upcoming opera has got me in a really musical mood (as if I'm ever NOT) but as I read E.M. Forester's The Other Side of the Hedge the above song, Being Alive instantly came to mind. Though my details on the plot of the musical are sketchy, it's basically a dramedy about a man named Bobby who has troubles committing to adult relationships and finds himself, on his 35th birthday, confronted with everything in life he tries to avoid. Hilarious and heartbreaking situations follow, and Being Alive is the big closing number. Bobby originally starts the song misanthropic, reflecting his initial sentiments, and finishes with this final verse and chorus realizing the value of everyday life.

It's really quite a beautful song, and The Other Side of the Hedge is a beautiful poem, with connections to the song. Hedge examines the value of life and human existence from a more progressional standpoint, showing the protagonist jogging in the beginning along with many others before finally falling in the hedge. Within, she finds a sect of humanity that does not move but simply stands in place and does nothing. They simply stand around containing great amounts of potential but not using it at all, because that is supposedly the better way to live. Of course, that is not really living at all, and the heroine cries out "Give me life, with its struggles and victories, with its failures and hatreds, with its deep moral meaning and its unknown goal!" Suddenly, the El Dorado chapters in Candide have new meaning and weight. Suddenly, Candide's escape from the perfect city of peace becomes not a selfish endeavour but the result of a deep and longing desire for something more than just comfort and inactivity. There is no life in El Dorado, true life is outside the hedge! I'm beginning that this distinction between apathy and action, between peace and tribulation, ultimately between stale life and true life is the ground upon which modernity makes its stand, and I look forward to seeing what Bonhoeffer and Faulkner do with this tension.

Thanks for reading, please feel free to comment as you wish. I commented on Josh Goldman's Apparently, the Hedge IS Greener On the Other Side.

Second-Guessing

The first thing I thought about the rescuer in "Over the Hedge" was, "that's gotta be his brother." Don't ask me why I thought that, I just did. Once that thought had crossed my mind though, I immediately put it out of my head, sure that I was wrong. Of course, I wasn't wrong.

This is something I do often, guessing something about a book, movie, or tv show at the very beginning. Normally, I either forget the thought I had or I decide I MUST be wrong. Most of the time it's because I'm hoping I'm wrong. The rest of the time though, it's because I'm sure my guess is too obvious and the real thing has to be more complicated. It makes me think of tests I've taken in the past where I've second-guessed myself and changed an answer, only to find out I was right in the first place.

I think I do this with God too often. I'll be sure He's telling me to do something and then second guess myself. I've been doing this for years with a calling to the mission field. He called me when I was 14, and I chose to answer that call. After a few months though, I decided that there was no way He wanted me to go out of the country for missions. Now though, I'm sure He does. Within recent years, I've been trying to not second-guess what God is calling me to do, but it's hard. Maybe it's time for me to stop second-guessing what I decipher about books, television, and movies and just try to accept what I've thought.

On a completely different note, I got a chance to spend the evening with Dr. Bear who is speaking tomorrow in Honors and I'm very excited about seeing her teach tomorrow. I have a feeling she will do great tomorrow, and this is something I WON'T second-guess!

Until next time,

~Meghan

P.S. I commented on Autumn's post

Apparently, the Hedge IS Greener on the Other Side

While reading through "The Other Side of the Hedge", especially through the first scene with the race, I couldn't help but relate it to the conformity experienced by society today. Since we were children, we have been preparing for success. Kindergarten ready's society for elementary school. Elementary school readies us for middle school. Middle school prepares us for High School. High School is all about getting ready for college, and once we are in college, we are told that we are preparing for success in the workplace. A huge portion of our lives are spent preparing for success and we make success in the business world our main priority. We are in a "race" for success and that is what I imagine the first scene of this story being. However, death finds everyone. Everyone, no matter how successful, will die. Success cannot help anyone escape death. So I think that the image the writer is trying to portray is that people run a huge race that has no end, then once they are exhausted they die. The man was passed by many once he could go no more.

Another thing that I took note of was that the narrator was sorry for his brother because "He had wasted his breath on singing, and his strength on helping others." However, is that the mindset that we should have. Should we be so caught up in our race for success that we forget to cherish the little things like singing or helping out the less fortunate? I think as servants of Christ, we should all be more like the brother, who serves instead of losing himself in his success.

p.s. commented on Autumns "Let Me Outta Here"

Let Me Outta Here!

So I find it suspiciously interesting that the week we celebrate love and friendship the Honors class is reading two stories dealing with death, just saying.
I just finished reading “The Other Side of the Hedge” and I find it interesting that while it is vaguely similar to “No Exit”, it’s also rather different, like two sides of the same coin. Judging by these two works, death is an ending. Not a reward or specific punishment depending on the life lived, just an ending where everyone sort of ends up eventually. Apparently death is also quite boring. I think the authors are maybe trying to say that there is no relief in death, for neither the good people nor the bad people. Death just… is. That kind of purposeless existence is awful. In both cases, the main character(s) try to escape back into life only to be barred from doing so. Clearly, they don’t want to be there. How terrible must it be if a life full of strife, toil, and unhappiness is better than death.


P.S.: i commented on Will's "The Other Side"

Call It Fate

Reading "No Exit" really got me questioning the idea of fate. There was a reason why it was specifically them. They were broguht together for a purpose. So many people say that fate is nonexistent. I completely disagree with them. Now I do not believe that we are predestined, but I do believe that things happen for a reason. There are moments that the decision we make at that point in time completely changes our lives. Imagine if we had chosen one path over another in a particular point in time. It could have altered everything that we know.
I kept picturing the "Saw" series while I read this story. In the second movie of the series, all of the people keep questioning why they are there in the first place. One of the main characters, Amanda says that they are all in there for a reason. They all begin to start questioning why everyone is in there much like what Garcin, Inez, and Estelle do in the play. None of the characters are in there by chance. There is a reason why Satan or Jigsaw from "Saw" put all of them in there together. They all committed horrific acts and needed to be punished. Jigsaw put the characters in their own idea of Hell while these characters from "No Exit" are actually in Hell. Though I wish that the Hell in "No Exit" had been worse. I feel like Garcin, Inez, and Estelle needed a greater punishment.
P.S. I commented on His Beloved's post, "Call Me Crazy, but..."

the path less traveled

The Other Side of the Hedge definitely got me thinking. Initially, I was paralleling the road with the Christian walk, but as I continued to read my perception of the allegory changed a bit. I’m still not sure to what Forster was referring, but I think there could be Christian parallels. The journey along the road is what so many do in this world. It’s a constant race, trying to outdistance others and reach the end. No one really knows what is at the end; they just use elusive concepts to describe it: fame, fortune, achievement, success. What is this, really? They do not know, no one does, because those who are said to have reached these things are still unhappy. They continue to run along the road, looking for more, or for happiness, or for love and acceptance. Then, one tires of the endlessness of the road, and wishes to know if there is another way? They go through the hedge, and find…Jesus? I could be stretching this allegory too far or taking it the wrong way, but just bear with me. Say one goes through the briars of the hedge and the cleansing water that washes off the dirt from the road. On the other side waits Jesus to show them this different way of life. The place doesn’t lead to anywhere, because the traveler is already one with God. No more striving needed. When walking the path, the man keeps trying to outdistance his companion, as we so often do with Jesus. We are impatient and eager to get somewhere else, so we try to run ahead of Him, when He wants to lead us by quiet waters, let us rest in green pastures, and guide us in the path of righteousness. (Psalm 23) We can’t see the end of the path; we don’t even know where we are going. But we have a guide beside us, one who can give us peace, who just wants us to trust Him. Of course, the Christian life isn’t all daisies and roses, but I think that’s why the running man and the man with the scythe are included. There is purpose in walking with God, but it’s not the American dream for which the rest of the world is striving. We can’t compare our progress with that of other Christians, because God is personal, and each person is at a different place in their relationship with Him. “It is my great happiness to help someone out of the moat, as I helped you. For our country fills up slowly, though it was meant for all mankind.” God desires all mankind to come to know and walk with him, but not all choose to see what’s on the “other side of the hedge.” It's definitely the path less traveled.
p.s. Rachel’s Blah Blah -Authentic Self

"Is this Transcendence?"

So I worked up a really nice thought as I was commenting on Will's blog and I just wanted to go into it a little more on my own. As I mentioned in my comment, this may be a little stretch, but it is food for thought before we go in and discuss "The Other Side of the Hedge."

Ok, we can gather from the reading (and from her pre-discussion questions) that the reading has some religious themes and, to me, it seems to be an allegory of the human condition.

As far as the allegory goes, the parallels I found were in the people of the road being a sort of busy body people who are going towards a goal that no one really knows about. He mentions right off that most of the people who pass him as he takes a break jeer at him, which makes me think that it is a cruel lonely existence. He remembers his brother and how he falls behind because he was more more worried about helping other people and used his breath to sing and such. It seems to survive in this existence you have to in an "every man for himself" kind of mentality.

Then, in some sort of enlightenment he realizes some curiosity for the other side and (after a bit of suffering) makes it to this "community of the moat." It is a place of happy people who aren't going anywhere seem as if they feel by being in this place they have indeed "arrived." I feel like this existence parallels with a sort of transcendence, which could be a sort of heaven but most likely the life of the enlightened. In fact, it is all tied together with the presence of his brother.

To me, it seems like strolling, or running, or whatever this "rat race" (as Will called it) of life is only done properly if one is individualist... and maybe even selfish. And there is no assurance that the toil even has a profitable end. However I feel like the author finds the real gain in being one of the people of the moat.

I donno, I may have posed for even more questions... it'll be interesting to talk about what do you guys think?

Which Side of the Hedge Are You On?

As I was reading through this excerpt I could not help but pick out numerous points and say that's Christianity or that's the world. We live in this world where we have set these goals and standards for ourselves. We refuse to stop and look around at what we could do to make our lives easier. The narrator was running down this road and the only thing on his mind was running his race. It kind of makes me think of an anti-Paul. Paul says that he has run the race with diligence. He has fought the good fight. What race his this man ran though? His race was only to do what he wanted to do. He only wanted to push his agenda. I think as Christians we need to take a look at what race we are running. Are we running a race that brings glory to God or are we running a race that will only bring glory to ourselves.

This is just one of the first thoughts that popped into my head while I was reading this. I would write more but I don't want to be that guy who's blog is like 5 pages long.

P.S. I commented on Will's post

Call me crazy, but....

No Exit seemed to me a weird way of portraying Hell. It was a place of suffering for eternity, however, the characters were concerned with the outward appearances while in hell. I'm pretty sure the appearances of the ones who are there are not what is the worst thing to worry about in hell. Its eternal burning! Maybe i began to develop this view of this story because with almost everything I read I have to look at it by what I know the reality of christian beliefs. Even if I know that the story being read is not from a christian view, I can't help but to see it that way. After taking this fault I have under consideration I was able to better read the story and see it in a non-christian view (not that christian is bad, ofcourse) but sometimes it hinders the meaning of the story or my opinion of the story. Okay, so I just went off on a tangent, but while sitting in class on tuesday, all I could think about what how the idea of hell portrayed in the story was not the real hell.
 p.s I commented on Jamie's post "Random thoughts on No Exit"

Random thoughts on "No Exit"

Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but I felt that "No Exit" was a bit silly. In my opinion, it made hell out to be an unpleasant place, but not necessarily horrific. Sure, the characters were stuck in a state where they felt bad about themselves, but I don't really equate that to burning for eternity. To me, it seemed the equivalent of making someone who loves the outdoors sit through a power points for eternity.

Then, however, I stopped taking the story so literally and began thinking of it as a picture of suffering here on earth. So often, the things we hate most in other people are the things we hate the most about ourselves. Being forced to face who we really are can be torturous.

p.s. Commented on Joy's "Unfulfilling Confirmation VS The Only Fulfilling Confirmation"

The Other Side

Be sure to read "The Other Side of the Hedge" for Honors tomorrow! Dr. Bear will be speaking with us about it.

***(((Spoiler alert! Go read it before you start reading here!)))***

Before the discussion begins flowing tomorrow, I wanted to speak a little about it here. This allegory really opened my mind for the day. It reflects the human condition we've created for ourselves. I saw the revisitation of the Apollonian problem very clearly. We humans work diligently toward goals we've created for ourselves. We have convinced ourselves that we are working toward a climactic finish line. We do not know the reward nor the time it will take to get there, and we strive still.

I am not sure whether or not E. M. Forster was a Christian, but it conjures the Christian message still. There is peace that God is gifting us through His Son, but we continue working for our own salvation. Although the road we are on does not return to Him through our own workings, it did start with Him, and it's been an attempted progression back to that glory since the departure from the Garden.

Of course, it could more easily be paralleled as an allegory of the desire to "transcend" some social construction and the rat race we participate in. It will be interesting to see how class goes tomorrow.

PS - Commented on Rachel's "Blah Blah- Authentic Self"

Blah Blah- Authentic Self.

I highly encourage EVERYONE to spend the time to read No Exit. It is really interesting.

As I contemplated the true/authentic self (Will Drake was talking about something) I began to think about it in a sort of word picture. These people (Estelle, Inez, Garcin) are all extremely dependent on other people and their relationships to define themselves. I believe the existentialist would affirm free standing identity. Thus, I began to imagine a set of dominos, all lined up next to each other. (I I I I I I I I I) Their identity is found in and of themselves and discovering the depth of their own character, and yet their fall, or their movement can effect others, but that movement does not define them. However, the hell characters seemed to be dependent upon that human interaction to give meaning to their existence. More a house of cards, which if one fails the whole thing tumbles downwards. They forfeited their opportunity to pursue the individual self in an effort to be apart of something collective and at the core of it to understand themselves as part and influencer in that collective- Thus their punishment seems fitting to spend eternity collectively unable to find themselves apart from each other. Three selfish people depending upon others for meaning and existence being punished FOREVER (forever) with each other unable to them discover that significance which none of them attained in life.

I commented on Joy's Unfulfilling Confirmation

Unfulfilling Confirmation VS The Only Fulfilling Confirmation

So while we were in class today discussing “No Exit” it came up that in the story, skit, whatever you want to call it, there lies the undertone and blatant reality that each character in some way or another is wanting someone else to fulfill them. They want affirmation, validation and all that. Each one of the characters was waiting to hear the confirmation they desired from one person or another. I started thinking again how this ties into a believers life. Waiting for the confirmation of others to fulfill us will lead down a “deserted road”/empty fulfillment… Only Christ can fulfill us in the way we truly desire. People, no matter how close they are to us, will still hurt us and let us down. Their confirmation will never be truly enough… Do not get me wrong, it is good to be affirmed by friends, but think about it, we can receive affirmation one day and still seek it from those same people the next. Why do we seek their affirmation when the only that can truly fulfill us is Jesus Christ’s? We are to seek Him and His will for our lives. Seek His seal of approval (which come through being sealed by the blood of Jesus Christ).
I also liked when Dr. Abernathy said, if you need a mirror or someone to confirm you, you don’t know who you are. It takes me back to the verse in James 1:23 - “For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror.” This verse is rather self-explanatory so I will just leave it at that for whoever reads this to think upon. How often do we hear the word of God but then after hearing it stop there? We feel His leading but turn a deaf heart, ear, mind, or body of service to Him?.

Ps - Lane

Poetry as the Essence of the Soul and my Shallow Mind

After slogging my way through Heidegger, a feat which I never thought I could do, I think I have finally reached what is referred to my upperclassmen friends as "the Honors Experience.". I am tired, drained, and in mental anguish. So this is enlightenment. I am still not sure if I agree with this, but what I do know is that this is tough. Heidegger is either a genius or a fool.

Last Semester Dr. Mitchell made a comment that poetry is the essence of the soul. At the time I did not agree with this. If the soul was harmoniously chaotic as the Romantics believed, then how could something so rigid and structured, albeit smooth and flowing, be what our souls really say? I wasn't sure what to think, but I was pretty sure that the statement was false, that poetry was not the essence of the soul.

Five months later, I still don't know what to think. In What are Poets For? Heidegger states that we, as physical beings, cannot completely interpret elegies and sonnets. This, Heidegger says, is because Poetry is from the soul, that we cannot understand it. Translating from the language of Being to spoken dialogue is going to lose implications from the original writing.

That being said. Heidegger told me that my thinking was very shallow, and that I'm too materialistic. How did he do this? He said I can't completely understand metaphysics.

He's right.

~Cody Martin

P.S. I commented on Hunter's My Brain Hurts

02/08/2012

I love this idea of what would things be like if one detail of my parents' lives was different and how would that effect me. We talked about this for a while in class yesterday and to be honest, it's something I think about quite a lot. We always think about why did this happen to me and if something had just been different things would be better. But in reality if things like that were to change, then we would not be the person we are today. That could be something so simple as not being quite as mature or wise, or it could be something huge like you never even being born. Several stories were mentioned that have instances of this like Lord of the Rings, Hamlet, or Esther. Dr. Olsen pointed out that none of these stories leave it at the sorrowful pitty-party that we like to throw for ourselves. There is a flip side to all of that. No one likes to deal with uncomfortable and life altering situations, but the question isn't why this had to happen to you, it should be what are you going to do no that you are there.
This is so cool to me because even though this isn't a "Bible" class, this is still a Biblical principle taught in other works. I just think it's cool how much the Bible has an influence on the world and the world doesn't even know it.

Commented on Tori's post

Hot & Cold

I am completely aware that Heidegger wants to avoid religion altogether, but I have decided I am going to take what I like from the reading and put it into lessons I have been learning on top of all of his ranting. So, to you Heidegger: frankly, my dear, I would quote a line from Gone with the Wind.

Due to my recent obsession with my intercultural studies class, the whole notion of who I will be when I finally get to India has gone wild. So far we have read two books on cross-cultural interactions. One is about how to get yourself out of your own cultural conditioning in order to respect and respond to others’; the other book is about understanding how the cultures are different based on regions (hot and cold climate behaviors, if you will).

To give you my bullet point Abernathy quotes from my notes on Tuesday’s class:
-- “He doesn’t want us to think like Descartes with “I think, therefore I am” because that says that what we think is all there is.”
-- “He wants us to think in terms of care, not compassion, but engagement.”
-- “There is a tension of who/what/how you are, of whether you would/would not do if you were/were not these things.”
The question I wrote to myself at the end of the class was, “You are a part of the scheme, but would ou still be you without the scheme?”

I know I am a far miss on all of this, but I started thinking about Sarah Lanier’s Foreign to Familiar as a result. In chapter seven, Lanier discusses a Korean friend who came to America who learned to culturally change who she was in each crowd. When she was around Westerners (Americans) she was that version of her; when Koreans were around, she switched back to that cultural condition. Lanier applauds this because she bridged the culture gap between Americans and Koreans in their work environment. While the Korean woman never became a Westerner herself, she ultimately learned how to relate to us. All of that is fine and wonderful, and I applaud the woman for bridging that gap, but I cannot help but wonder who her authentic self is in the midst of all this culture. If the concept of self is a social construction, then who really is this Korean woman underneath that social construction of dual roles?

I know the intended meaning behind the first bullet point statement, but I took it a different direction. If I think, and therefore I am, and I measure my existence by what I think and what I know, then Heidegger is right. That sort of thinking is wrong. What I think is not at all applicable in India a vast majority of the time.

As far as the second bullet and thinking in terms of engagement, there are multiple meanings for that word. But to be engaged in something is for it to have your attention and for your attention to be held there. When I get to India, my immediate response is not going to be care in terms of compassion. My initial reaction must be care in terms of engagement. To maintain my essent, I must understand the hows and whys of the Indians I encounter based on their own social constructions. I must maintain my essent outside of my cultural conditioning. It goes beyond being a bridge, it goes into being authentic, decentered self regardless of cultural conditioning or cultural placement.

COMMENTED ON BENJAMMIN'S