Having shown 'Ruined', the poem that i posted on here in November of 2006, to a friend and my creative writing tutor, i have decided to take into consideration their edits, and suggestions. Hence, i would now like to present 'A Battleship', courtesy of my Creative writing tutor and my close friend.
A battleship
Man's machine
Powerful
Terrifying
Ruler of the sea.
It knows every plane,
every country,
every ship,
every bomb,
every target,
every threat.
It knows them,
all.
It sails on a path, straight and steady.
Never falters,
Never diverts.
At a steady speed,
It sails
on towards its
target.
Once there, it
Ruins,
Demolishes,
Annihilates,
leaving nothing.
It's efficient,
quick,
accurate,
Perfect.
Then comes a
Storm.
Something different,
Alien. The battleship doesn't know,
what it is,
what to do.
The Thunder,
the Lightening,
the Rain,
the Hail.
Then BOOM...
Helplessness...
Engulfing the battleship,
surrounding it,
hiding it,
blanketing it.
The time has come,
it has fallen;
In all its
glory.
The storm;
it surprised,
it rocked the battleship.
It was quick,
efficient,
accurate,
Perfect.
It's exposed,
naked,
bare.
No longer a battleship...
...not even a ship.
Very different i know.
One may argue that editing is where the real story comes to the fore. Personally i disagree strongly. I believe that editing, whilst necessary, in poetry, it destroys the integrity of the piece.
My view, though, not the view of the many academic and critical thinkers of today, who'd argue they know more about english literature than i do. Any- how; All's well that ends well.
The new and revised version of 'Ruined!!!'. Enjoy.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
'Eternal Return'- Nietzsche
Milan Kundera, in his book: The Unbearable Lightness of Being, opens his novel with: "The idea of eternal return is a mysterious one, and Nietzsche has often perplexed other philosophers with it: to think that everything recurs as we once experianced it, and that the recurrance itself recurs ad infinitum!"
Take a moment, my dear reader, to think upon this statement.
When i first read, this statement, i didn't know if i should call Nietzsche pessimistic, or realistic. The endless possibilities that this statement offers. One could argue that, based on this logic, all happiness, all sorrow, all anger, all danger; in other words, all experiances, never really 'end', so that another may take its place. Using this line of reason, Nietzsche could be suggesting that, as the action of living through one experiance ends, it is merely placed 'on hold', till the next time that it will recur; perhaps under a different circumstace, and for a different reason. However, it could be fair to say that, Nietzsche is saying we merely pick up where we left off.
At first glance, this does appear to be a very pessimistic out- look on life and experiance. However, that is where most will fail to notice the trick to this statement. If every experiance recurs, and the recurrance itself is a recurrance, then that means that if we pick up where we left off, when we're sad, or angry, or in despair; then the same has to go for when we're happy, over- joyed or ecstatic.
Thinking about this for a second, one then begs the question: If we're merely picking up where we left off, does that mean we're actually progressing towards any 'higher' state of 'happiness'; or descending into any 'lower' state of 'sorrow'?
I think, in order to answer this question, my dear reader, you must ask yourself what it is you believe. Is there a 'higher' or 'lower' form of happiness that we progress from, to? Is there a 'higher' form of 'sadness' or 'anger' or 'despair', that we descend from, into a 'lower' form of either of these three states of being?
If we follow this line of logic a little further then we find ourselves asking the question: Does this mean that, at one point or another, one may actually be capable of reaching 'pure' happiness, or 'pure' anger/ sorrow?
Many philosophers argue that it is in fact impossible for man to reach the highest form of happiness, because he will always be striving for further excellence, no matter how far up he climbs. However, wouldn't it be possible to argue that, in the case of sorrow, more specifically, one may reach that level? Could it not be the attainment of 'pure' sorrow that sees a person descend into madness, or an incurable psychological state, or, talking more extreme terms; couldn't it be the attainment of 'pure' sorrow that sees one descend to the state of attempting to committ suicide, and, in some unfortunate cases, actually following the action through?
Whatever the answers may be, typical of most things in life, we hit yet another question: Does this mean that we should live life and attempt to appreciate all experiances? Or, should we merely pass 'through' life, not really engaging with people and experiancing life and all it has to offer, since we will simply 'return' to similar states of being, through- out the course of our lives?
Once again, my dear reader, i will not provide an answer to these tricky questions. Partly because i have no answer for them myself. Oscar Wilde, in this instance, however, does come to mind. I don't not believe there could be a more appropriate time to remind you, dear reader, of what Wilde had to say, on the experiance of sorrow, in De Profundis. "To regret one's own experiances is to arrest one's own development. To deny one's own experiances is to put a lie into the lips of one's own life. It is no less than a denial of the soul".
Take a moment, my dear reader, to think upon this statement.
When i first read, this statement, i didn't know if i should call Nietzsche pessimistic, or realistic. The endless possibilities that this statement offers. One could argue that, based on this logic, all happiness, all sorrow, all anger, all danger; in other words, all experiances, never really 'end', so that another may take its place. Using this line of reason, Nietzsche could be suggesting that, as the action of living through one experiance ends, it is merely placed 'on hold', till the next time that it will recur; perhaps under a different circumstace, and for a different reason. However, it could be fair to say that, Nietzsche is saying we merely pick up where we left off.
At first glance, this does appear to be a very pessimistic out- look on life and experiance. However, that is where most will fail to notice the trick to this statement. If every experiance recurs, and the recurrance itself is a recurrance, then that means that if we pick up where we left off, when we're sad, or angry, or in despair; then the same has to go for when we're happy, over- joyed or ecstatic.
Thinking about this for a second, one then begs the question: If we're merely picking up where we left off, does that mean we're actually progressing towards any 'higher' state of 'happiness'; or descending into any 'lower' state of 'sorrow'?
I think, in order to answer this question, my dear reader, you must ask yourself what it is you believe. Is there a 'higher' or 'lower' form of happiness that we progress from, to? Is there a 'higher' form of 'sadness' or 'anger' or 'despair', that we descend from, into a 'lower' form of either of these three states of being?
If we follow this line of logic a little further then we find ourselves asking the question: Does this mean that, at one point or another, one may actually be capable of reaching 'pure' happiness, or 'pure' anger/ sorrow?
Many philosophers argue that it is in fact impossible for man to reach the highest form of happiness, because he will always be striving for further excellence, no matter how far up he climbs. However, wouldn't it be possible to argue that, in the case of sorrow, more specifically, one may reach that level? Could it not be the attainment of 'pure' sorrow that sees a person descend into madness, or an incurable psychological state, or, talking more extreme terms; couldn't it be the attainment of 'pure' sorrow that sees one descend to the state of attempting to committ suicide, and, in some unfortunate cases, actually following the action through?
Whatever the answers may be, typical of most things in life, we hit yet another question: Does this mean that we should live life and attempt to appreciate all experiances? Or, should we merely pass 'through' life, not really engaging with people and experiancing life and all it has to offer, since we will simply 'return' to similar states of being, through- out the course of our lives?
Once again, my dear reader, i will not provide an answer to these tricky questions. Partly because i have no answer for them myself. Oscar Wilde, in this instance, however, does come to mind. I don't not believe there could be a more appropriate time to remind you, dear reader, of what Wilde had to say, on the experiance of sorrow, in De Profundis. "To regret one's own experiances is to arrest one's own development. To deny one's own experiances is to put a lie into the lips of one's own life. It is no less than a denial of the soul".
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Continuity or Change...?
I was watching a show on t.v. the other day. It was titled: "10 days the Queen will remember". The show documented the Birth, rise to Ascension, Coronation and the Reign of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. The show looked at the trials and the tribulations the Queen passed, through child- hood, through to adult- hood, and on to "Queen- hood". It also looked at the scandals that surrounded the British Royal Family at these times, and how they impacted on the young Elizabeth.
To date, this is not the first show i have seen on the British Royals, both past and present. One thing i have constantly observed is that it is difficult to document the geneaology of any Royal Family, without delving into the "juicy bits". The scandals, the mistresses, the divorces; However, i can only sit back and wonder why?
What is it about these negative aspects of "Royal life" which make them all the more appealing to the more "common masses". One could argue that such aspects appeal to the common masses becuase Royal life- style has, through- out history, proven to be "above" that of the "common life- style". The behaviour, the culture, the language, the life- style of Royalty is a paragon to which the "common masses" should look up to, as an example of highest living style/s. Alternatively, and more to do with Political Agenda, one could use such "failures" of Royal society, to argue for the abolishment of such an ancient and highly respected "institution". One could argue that the result of such "high" behaviour, such well- knowledged culture, and the language of Royal society is over- indulgence and extravagent spending.
Some of these issues were mentioned in the show. Alas, it has become a "frequently asked question", in the Parliaments of the Imperial Realm, whether the actions of the Monarchy constitute the "breaking away" of Nations, in favour of a "Republic". One of the biggest focuses of the show, however, had nothing to do with scandal, or the behaviour of the Royal Family, or its members. The biggest focus of the show was Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, and the effort she was putting into a battle. This battle, however, is like no other. This battle has been over the question of: "Continuity, or Change?". Should the Monarchy "move" with society? Thus, changing its own morals, values and "Standards of Practice"? Or, should the Monarchy attempt to retain the nostalgia it has thus far? Should the Monarchy attempt to retain the honour and dignity that it once held, and was held in such high esteem by? Or, should the Monarchy "move with the times", and risk loosing the "Majesty", that Queen Elizabeth has fought so hard to retain, in an ever- so- quickly changing society?
It was concluded by some Royal reporters, and authors of books on the Windsor Royal Family, that Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, has done well to retain the honour, decorum, and dignity, that the "institution" of which she is the head, thus far. To this i must agree. Queen Elizabeth II has done much for the Royal House of Windsor, and certainly been through tough times, to retain the honour, and dignity, and respect, which, i feel, her mere presence now demands of all. Although, it was also stated by many that this venture of Her Majesty's, how- ever well it has done up till now, will not, indeed, can not go on for much longer. It saddens me to admit it, however, once again, i feel i must agree. The morals and the values and the traditions of the British Monarchy, which never cease to set the standard of Royal Practice for other Royal Families still in power, and capture the attention of billions around the world, which Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II has battled hard to up hold, will, if they haven't already, come to be seen as "out- of- touch", and "out- of- date".
Whilst all of this is frightful enough, for someone who is an Imperialist, and strong supporter of the Monarchy, there was still one comment to be made, close to the conclusion of the show, which not only piqued my interest, but which "hit home" one point, in particular. One reporter was further commenting on Her Majesty's actions to "keep up" old practices, whilst attempting to move the Monarchy foward with society. The main point of his responce was his belief, and strong belief at that, that Queen Elizabeth II, in fact, was not keen on abdicating, or stepping down, from the Throne, because of an instinct he felt, she was feeling too.
"Queen Elizabeth will not abdicate, or step aside, till she dies, because, i feel, she knows very well, that she is, in fact, the last proper Monarch of the British Monarchy. And that, the British Monarchy, is something she wants remembered the way it was, or close to the way it was, when she ascended to the Throne and was Coronated as the head of this fine institution".
No words were able to describe the strong sense of despair and disbelief i felt upon hearing these words. However, as much as it pained me then, and as much as it pains me now; there is no denying the truth behind the sad and harsh words. Without a doubt, Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II has done much to be proud of, and has done much to be comended for. No journey, however, is complete without the trials and tribulations which exist only to test us. Her Majesty proved, not only to herself, and to her family, but to her subjects and to the rest of the world, that she was more than capable of heading this "institution". Having said that, though, it is not hard to see the nostalgia, for honour and decorum and dignity, beginning to "stretch", for want of a better word. Unfortunately, i must admit, that i, also, believe that the British Monarchy is reaching its end. With whom it shall end, i can not say. I do, however, hope that i get to see Prince William coronated. In him i believe lies a man fit to be King. In itself, however, that statement does not go unaccompanied. William, himself will make changes to the Monarchy, as he will be his own King, and amend the practices of the Monarchy he feels will ensure its continuity. Thus, we return, full circle to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, of the Royal House of Windsor. Who, in this Imperialists mind, will be the last, competant, and proper, Monarch of the British Monarchy.
With that sad thought in mind, however, it should be noted that: Until Her Majesty is forced to abdicate the Throne, or decides to abdicate the Throne, or passes on, Her Majesty remains the symbolic, and Constitutional head of the United Kingdom and all the Commonwealth Nations and her dependancies. Long Live Queen Elizabeth! God Bless Queen Elizabeth! Long Live The Queen!
To date, this is not the first show i have seen on the British Royals, both past and present. One thing i have constantly observed is that it is difficult to document the geneaology of any Royal Family, without delving into the "juicy bits". The scandals, the mistresses, the divorces; However, i can only sit back and wonder why?
What is it about these negative aspects of "Royal life" which make them all the more appealing to the more "common masses". One could argue that such aspects appeal to the common masses becuase Royal life- style has, through- out history, proven to be "above" that of the "common life- style". The behaviour, the culture, the language, the life- style of Royalty is a paragon to which the "common masses" should look up to, as an example of highest living style/s. Alternatively, and more to do with Political Agenda, one could use such "failures" of Royal society, to argue for the abolishment of such an ancient and highly respected "institution". One could argue that the result of such "high" behaviour, such well- knowledged culture, and the language of Royal society is over- indulgence and extravagent spending.
Some of these issues were mentioned in the show. Alas, it has become a "frequently asked question", in the Parliaments of the Imperial Realm, whether the actions of the Monarchy constitute the "breaking away" of Nations, in favour of a "Republic". One of the biggest focuses of the show, however, had nothing to do with scandal, or the behaviour of the Royal Family, or its members. The biggest focus of the show was Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, and the effort she was putting into a battle. This battle, however, is like no other. This battle has been over the question of: "Continuity, or Change?". Should the Monarchy "move" with society? Thus, changing its own morals, values and "Standards of Practice"? Or, should the Monarchy attempt to retain the nostalgia it has thus far? Should the Monarchy attempt to retain the honour and dignity that it once held, and was held in such high esteem by? Or, should the Monarchy "move with the times", and risk loosing the "Majesty", that Queen Elizabeth has fought so hard to retain, in an ever- so- quickly changing society?
It was concluded by some Royal reporters, and authors of books on the Windsor Royal Family, that Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, has done well to retain the honour, decorum, and dignity, that the "institution" of which she is the head, thus far. To this i must agree. Queen Elizabeth II has done much for the Royal House of Windsor, and certainly been through tough times, to retain the honour, and dignity, and respect, which, i feel, her mere presence now demands of all. Although, it was also stated by many that this venture of Her Majesty's, how- ever well it has done up till now, will not, indeed, can not go on for much longer. It saddens me to admit it, however, once again, i feel i must agree. The morals and the values and the traditions of the British Monarchy, which never cease to set the standard of Royal Practice for other Royal Families still in power, and capture the attention of billions around the world, which Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II has battled hard to up hold, will, if they haven't already, come to be seen as "out- of- touch", and "out- of- date".
Whilst all of this is frightful enough, for someone who is an Imperialist, and strong supporter of the Monarchy, there was still one comment to be made, close to the conclusion of the show, which not only piqued my interest, but which "hit home" one point, in particular. One reporter was further commenting on Her Majesty's actions to "keep up" old practices, whilst attempting to move the Monarchy foward with society. The main point of his responce was his belief, and strong belief at that, that Queen Elizabeth II, in fact, was not keen on abdicating, or stepping down, from the Throne, because of an instinct he felt, she was feeling too.
"Queen Elizabeth will not abdicate, or step aside, till she dies, because, i feel, she knows very well, that she is, in fact, the last proper Monarch of the British Monarchy. And that, the British Monarchy, is something she wants remembered the way it was, or close to the way it was, when she ascended to the Throne and was Coronated as the head of this fine institution".
No words were able to describe the strong sense of despair and disbelief i felt upon hearing these words. However, as much as it pained me then, and as much as it pains me now; there is no denying the truth behind the sad and harsh words. Without a doubt, Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II has done much to be proud of, and has done much to be comended for. No journey, however, is complete without the trials and tribulations which exist only to test us. Her Majesty proved, not only to herself, and to her family, but to her subjects and to the rest of the world, that she was more than capable of heading this "institution". Having said that, though, it is not hard to see the nostalgia, for honour and decorum and dignity, beginning to "stretch", for want of a better word. Unfortunately, i must admit, that i, also, believe that the British Monarchy is reaching its end. With whom it shall end, i can not say. I do, however, hope that i get to see Prince William coronated. In him i believe lies a man fit to be King. In itself, however, that statement does not go unaccompanied. William, himself will make changes to the Monarchy, as he will be his own King, and amend the practices of the Monarchy he feels will ensure its continuity. Thus, we return, full circle to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, of the Royal House of Windsor. Who, in this Imperialists mind, will be the last, competant, and proper, Monarch of the British Monarchy.
With that sad thought in mind, however, it should be noted that: Until Her Majesty is forced to abdicate the Throne, or decides to abdicate the Throne, or passes on, Her Majesty remains the symbolic, and Constitutional head of the United Kingdom and all the Commonwealth Nations and her dependancies. Long Live Queen Elizabeth! God Bless Queen Elizabeth! Long Live The Queen!
Saturday, April 25, 2009
The Double- Edged Sword
Some would call it an unpatriotic, even disrespectful view. Some would see the logic, yet still claim otherwise. Others would probably agree with the view. Regardless of the criticism the play has recieved: "The History Boys" is a play that made a very interesting point about the British involvement in World War II. I, however, can't help but actually apply that very same view, to Australia's involvement in World War I and World War II.
Irwin, the new teacher at the school, at one point in the play, is speaking to the boys in the grounds. Speaking about the importance of Armistace Day, and why it is celebrated, Irwin states: "There is no better way of forgetting something than by commemmorating it...". An interesting thought says i to this. Why though? More importantly, how can one relate this statement, more to do with the British involvement, with the Australian involvement?
Revisionist views of History claim that it is possible, and in fact very likely, that Germany didn't want war in 1914. However, the arms race that was taking place was being lead by Britain. It is further claimed that Britain was seeking to ensure that their Empire, mainly controlled by its superior Naval power, was not undermined on the European continent. Thus, it was essential for Britain to enter into World War I. These historians would also claim, as Irwin does, that the main reason people take such a negative view of the Great War, as World War I is commonly reffered to, is to "shift" the blame, for want of a better word. As Germany was the sole country "embarrassed" at the signing of the treat of Versailles, most people take the negative view and blame the Germans of 1914, for the massacre and many deaths of World War I.
However, what people tend to forget is that Germans lost their lives too. Whether Germany was fighting a tactical Offensive War against Britain, or a tactical Defensive war against Britain, Germany suffered heavy losses at the end of the Allied artillery. General Sir Douglas Haig, it can be said, was a fool. A "Donkey leading the Lions", as the famous phrase goes. So how does all this relate to the legend of the ANZAC?
Whilst the ANZACs suffered terribly under the questionable leadership of Generals such as Haig, the ANZACs fought nonetheless. Whether they liked, or disliked, the British High Command, Australians were still committed to fighting in World War I. It was not till the end of 1918 when the the Australian Imperial Force, AIF, begun to fall short of troops, becuase people were no longer signing up to fight. During the course of the war, however, the ANZACs still fought and killed, just like the British did, just like the French did, just like the Germans did, just like the Italians did, just like the Russians did. When one takes a step out of the cultural and social traditions which play a significant role in the shaping of "National identity", one may come to realise that all these nations had one thing in common during 1914- 1918...they ALL fought a war, they ALL killed and they ALL suffered heavy losses. It is simply the way history has been dictated by those with the power of control, that meant Germany was blamed for the war in the first place. The signing of the Treat of Versailles meant that Germany's fate was sealed as the "Instigator of War". From then on, whilst many wrote of the "Lions lead by Donkey's" doctrine in regards to General Haig, most history was written, condemning and blaming Germany for the beginning and results of the Great War.
It's interesting how the ANZAC legacy has been created. It blames the British High Command for its decision to send thousands of troops "over the top" at Gallipoli and the Somme, which turned out to be fatal. Moreover, it indirectly blames the Germans for the instigation of World War I. If the Germans hadn't begun increasing and developing their army, then the British would not have seen any threat. This, in turn, would not have sparked a massive arms race between Britain, France and Germany, namely Britain and Germany. This wouldn't have lead many nations to also increase their military capacities, which ultimately lead to the "snapping of tensions", when Germany and Britain finally declared war on one another. The British would not have gone to war, taking with them the ANZACs and other national corps' of the Commonwealth.
Indeed, the saying is true: "It's easier to point the finger rather than turn it 180 degrees the other way". Alas! "There is no better way to forget something than to commemmorate it...". I wish, however, to make one thing ABUNDANTLY clear!
My intentions of this piece was not to disrespect the memory and the honour of the ANZACs. My intention was not to undermine the legacy of mateship, and national pride that was created on the bloody fields of Gallipoli and the Somme. My intention was to inform you, my reader, of the various interpretations of history that exist. Anyone who studies history knows very well that depending on one source alone is "Bad History". History does not only come from one source, nor is it written by one particular source. Indeed, the best history is one that incorporates many. It must be said and NEVER forgotten: the sacrificing of one's own life for the sake of a nation of peoples, barely known to him/ her is a noble sacrifice WORTHY of rememberance. Whether labelled Ally or Enemy, any and every sacrificed life, for the sake of a value, or for the sake of a belief is a noble cause, and a worthy sacrifice which should never be forgotten by the relative nation of peoples.
Thus...They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning...We will remember them! Lest We Forget!
Irwin, the new teacher at the school, at one point in the play, is speaking to the boys in the grounds. Speaking about the importance of Armistace Day, and why it is celebrated, Irwin states: "There is no better way of forgetting something than by commemmorating it...". An interesting thought says i to this. Why though? More importantly, how can one relate this statement, more to do with the British involvement, with the Australian involvement?
Revisionist views of History claim that it is possible, and in fact very likely, that Germany didn't want war in 1914. However, the arms race that was taking place was being lead by Britain. It is further claimed that Britain was seeking to ensure that their Empire, mainly controlled by its superior Naval power, was not undermined on the European continent. Thus, it was essential for Britain to enter into World War I. These historians would also claim, as Irwin does, that the main reason people take such a negative view of the Great War, as World War I is commonly reffered to, is to "shift" the blame, for want of a better word. As Germany was the sole country "embarrassed" at the signing of the treat of Versailles, most people take the negative view and blame the Germans of 1914, for the massacre and many deaths of World War I.
However, what people tend to forget is that Germans lost their lives too. Whether Germany was fighting a tactical Offensive War against Britain, or a tactical Defensive war against Britain, Germany suffered heavy losses at the end of the Allied artillery. General Sir Douglas Haig, it can be said, was a fool. A "Donkey leading the Lions", as the famous phrase goes. So how does all this relate to the legend of the ANZAC?
Whilst the ANZACs suffered terribly under the questionable leadership of Generals such as Haig, the ANZACs fought nonetheless. Whether they liked, or disliked, the British High Command, Australians were still committed to fighting in World War I. It was not till the end of 1918 when the the Australian Imperial Force, AIF, begun to fall short of troops, becuase people were no longer signing up to fight. During the course of the war, however, the ANZACs still fought and killed, just like the British did, just like the French did, just like the Germans did, just like the Italians did, just like the Russians did. When one takes a step out of the cultural and social traditions which play a significant role in the shaping of "National identity", one may come to realise that all these nations had one thing in common during 1914- 1918...they ALL fought a war, they ALL killed and they ALL suffered heavy losses. It is simply the way history has been dictated by those with the power of control, that meant Germany was blamed for the war in the first place. The signing of the Treat of Versailles meant that Germany's fate was sealed as the "Instigator of War". From then on, whilst many wrote of the "Lions lead by Donkey's" doctrine in regards to General Haig, most history was written, condemning and blaming Germany for the beginning and results of the Great War.
It's interesting how the ANZAC legacy has been created. It blames the British High Command for its decision to send thousands of troops "over the top" at Gallipoli and the Somme, which turned out to be fatal. Moreover, it indirectly blames the Germans for the instigation of World War I. If the Germans hadn't begun increasing and developing their army, then the British would not have seen any threat. This, in turn, would not have sparked a massive arms race between Britain, France and Germany, namely Britain and Germany. This wouldn't have lead many nations to also increase their military capacities, which ultimately lead to the "snapping of tensions", when Germany and Britain finally declared war on one another. The British would not have gone to war, taking with them the ANZACs and other national corps' of the Commonwealth.
Indeed, the saying is true: "It's easier to point the finger rather than turn it 180 degrees the other way". Alas! "There is no better way to forget something than to commemmorate it...". I wish, however, to make one thing ABUNDANTLY clear!
My intentions of this piece was not to disrespect the memory and the honour of the ANZACs. My intention was not to undermine the legacy of mateship, and national pride that was created on the bloody fields of Gallipoli and the Somme. My intention was to inform you, my reader, of the various interpretations of history that exist. Anyone who studies history knows very well that depending on one source alone is "Bad History". History does not only come from one source, nor is it written by one particular source. Indeed, the best history is one that incorporates many. It must be said and NEVER forgotten: the sacrificing of one's own life for the sake of a nation of peoples, barely known to him/ her is a noble sacrifice WORTHY of rememberance. Whether labelled Ally or Enemy, any and every sacrificed life, for the sake of a value, or for the sake of a belief is a noble cause, and a worthy sacrifice which should never be forgotten by the relative nation of peoples.
Thus...They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning...We will remember them! Lest We Forget!
Thursday, March 26, 2009
My Bucket List
I haven't watched "The Bucket List". I saw the ads on t.v. but, unfortunately, never got around to watching the film while it was in cinemas. However, it got me thinking about making my own list of goals, crazy things and wild adventures i'd like to embark on, before i "kick the bucket".
So here it is, My own "Bucket List":
1. Publish my first novel
2. Learn to play the piano
3. Learn to read and write and speak: German, Serbian and Russian; fluently
4. Create and register my designs for an "Apotsis Family Coat of Arms", and subsequent "Apotsis Family Crests", to have them officially recognised.
5. Travel the world on an the Queen Mary Ocean Liner
6. Bungee Jump
7. Sky Dive
8. Build my own ship and sail her on a maiden voyage
9. Make out with 26 people- one for each letter of the alphabet- =P
10. Get a tatoo/ piercing
For now this remains to be the said "Bucket List". Perhaps in the near future there may be additions, and i'm sure there will be many...or perhaps it will remain the same, (Gee i hope not!!). Nevertheless, here are the ten things, thus far, i wish to accomplish, before i kick the bucket!
So here it is, My own "Bucket List":
1. Publish my first novel
2. Learn to play the piano
3. Learn to read and write and speak: German, Serbian and Russian; fluently
4. Create and register my designs for an "Apotsis Family Coat of Arms", and subsequent "Apotsis Family Crests", to have them officially recognised.
5. Travel the world on an the Queen Mary Ocean Liner
6. Bungee Jump
7. Sky Dive
8. Build my own ship and sail her on a maiden voyage
9. Make out with 26 people- one for each letter of the alphabet- =P
10. Get a tatoo/ piercing
For now this remains to be the said "Bucket List". Perhaps in the near future there may be additions, and i'm sure there will be many...or perhaps it will remain the same, (Gee i hope not!!). Nevertheless, here are the ten things, thus far, i wish to accomplish, before i kick the bucket!
Friday, March 20, 2009
Literary Criticism
I was in my: Uses and Abuses of English Literary Theory class the other day. I must admit, these english literature subjects, which tend to focus on the analysis of texts and the critiquing of them, is becoming rather tedious and frustrating.
The topic of discussion for the tutorial was: Authorship and Authority. In short, this week we discussed how the author of a novel controls the meaning that is produced, and extrapolated, from the text, by the reader and critic. Furthermore, we discussed whether or not the author, the reader, or the critic should "control" meaning, and how a text would be interpreted. I was quite content with sitting back and watching the debate ensue, whilst also forming my own arguments and saving them for the "opportune moment".
When the question was put to us: "Should the author "control" meaning?" one girl in the class put her hand up and responded thus:
"I don't think the author should, because not everyone would agree with the author's interpretation of events/ issues of concern, in the text. They try to, through interviews and such, but i don't think they should have that "control". Many have started to put introductions in the beginning of the book itself to try and guide our thoughts, but i don't read them, because i know what they're trying to do."
I, having heard quite enought to last me a life- time, raised my hand and stole the floor, immediately plunging into an offensive against the erroneous and misguided claims my fellow scholar had put forward just moments ago.
"In "Ratatouille", the children's film, Anton Ego, the antagonistic food critic gives a final review of the restuarant "Gusteau's". In this criticism Anton says: "...We critics thrive on negative criticism, because it's fun to write and to read..." This tells me one thing: Humanity, as a collective, is firmly set on the deconstruction, and destruction of something new, something sweet, something artistic, something beautiful. I haven't published a book, as yet, but i am trying. The problem is, the author writes with the intention of entertaining. A writer is another entertainer, in an art form, much different to all others. People, every day, define new fashions, new styles, new values, new morals. As if control was not already aquired and held by the masses, but on top of all this, we have critics and other people, some of whom even exist in this class; who are set on reading and interpreting texts in their own way. What these people fail to see is that the introduction at the beginning of a text, whilst may be instructional, and asking for the reader to consider certain factors when reading the text, it DOES NOT have to be taken into account. What this introduction does, what this "statement of intent/ purpose" is doing, is acting as assurance to the author. If the author knows that something in their text may be interpreted as something they had no intention for, then the introduction would ask the reader to take into account certain factors/ circumstances when reading that part/ section/ extract. It has nothing to do with "controlling" what people think or feel or interpret the text as, however, it is asking you to see things from the perspective of the author when reading the text. Instead, what we have are people who are so fond of freedom that they'd sooner take a text, something someone has put their heart into; and critique it, deconstruct it, all for the sake of finding meaning...and as if this were not enough, on top of all this, there exist people in the world set on interpreting certain things as something they're not, and then bringing down the credibility of the author through negative criticism. THIS is the world we live in today! THIS is the sacred art of literary criticism."
Thus ended my seige. The class remained quiet for what seemed a long time. I think the point had hit home, and i also think some thought me a complete idiot for having gone on such a aggressive defence. A friend sitting beside me had looked at me with a smirk when i had started. Gradually the smirk left his face, and by the end of my monologue, the look was indescribable. My other friend, sitting next to him, on the other hand, watched the effect of my words take over the class. She, being of the same mind, was unpurturbed and even smiled at me afterwards. Deborah, our tutor; who understood my stance on english literature criticism from last year second semester, was trying hard to break the silence, and i cannot help but feel as though i may have crossed a line, which even she, despite understanding my argument, would not have crossed. At least, not in the manner which i did.
The point, very loosely, i was trying to make was: Modern day criticism techniques are not just set on the deconstruction and analysis of a text for the sake of enhancing meaning. Modern day criticism techniques are also set on "passing judgement" on a text, and stating the "value" of that text. Undoubtedly, there may be some very poorly written books. However, i return to Anton Ego's words: "In many ways the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and theirselves to our judgement. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that in the grand scheme of things the average peice of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so..."
The challenges many authors face is simple. Writing for the masses means that there are certain conventions, certain events, certain themes that can be included, that should be included, to ensure the success of a novel. Many authors, in fact all authors, devote their time and effort to writing, and subsequently, perfecting their work, till it is put to the press. Having their intentions dictated, their work altered by strange hands, often several times, and after putting in their time and effort to providing a source of entertainment, the author is the subjected to criticism. Not only from the readers, but from the critics as well. Their work, the art- work, their master- piece, is deconstructed, and examined in the most ruthless and unjust way, by BOTH people and critics alike. Rather than enjoy "Art for Art's sake" the people and the critics would prefer to analyse and create dellusions in the minds, by creating false meanings and interpretations of themes/ events and commentaries in the text.
The problem, i believe, is that: even in criticism, critics will look at different things as well. What one will percieve as important, another may disregard as insignificant. What critics fail to see is the importance of the text as a whole. What they fail to realise, because they are so set on criticising, is that the unity of the text is just as important as the individual factors/ elements of a novel and a story, which make up the whole, unifying idea of "novel". However, modern day criticism methods judge a book by how well it perfoms in various areas/ elements, which make up the whole. Furthermore, it is from the individual elements, and how the text and the author have performed in each, from whence the final judgement is made. No critic, nowdays, has judged, or will judge the "value" of a text by combining all the elements of the text, along with the effort of the author, to make a final judgement. The days of enjoying Art for the sake of Art are long gone. In their place have come the days of utter distaste, and a common goal for the destruction of all art that is meaningful.
The topic of discussion for the tutorial was: Authorship and Authority. In short, this week we discussed how the author of a novel controls the meaning that is produced, and extrapolated, from the text, by the reader and critic. Furthermore, we discussed whether or not the author, the reader, or the critic should "control" meaning, and how a text would be interpreted. I was quite content with sitting back and watching the debate ensue, whilst also forming my own arguments and saving them for the "opportune moment".
When the question was put to us: "Should the author "control" meaning?" one girl in the class put her hand up and responded thus:
"I don't think the author should, because not everyone would agree with the author's interpretation of events/ issues of concern, in the text. They try to, through interviews and such, but i don't think they should have that "control". Many have started to put introductions in the beginning of the book itself to try and guide our thoughts, but i don't read them, because i know what they're trying to do."
I, having heard quite enought to last me a life- time, raised my hand and stole the floor, immediately plunging into an offensive against the erroneous and misguided claims my fellow scholar had put forward just moments ago.
"In "Ratatouille", the children's film, Anton Ego, the antagonistic food critic gives a final review of the restuarant "Gusteau's". In this criticism Anton says: "...We critics thrive on negative criticism, because it's fun to write and to read..." This tells me one thing: Humanity, as a collective, is firmly set on the deconstruction, and destruction of something new, something sweet, something artistic, something beautiful. I haven't published a book, as yet, but i am trying. The problem is, the author writes with the intention of entertaining. A writer is another entertainer, in an art form, much different to all others. People, every day, define new fashions, new styles, new values, new morals. As if control was not already aquired and held by the masses, but on top of all this, we have critics and other people, some of whom even exist in this class; who are set on reading and interpreting texts in their own way. What these people fail to see is that the introduction at the beginning of a text, whilst may be instructional, and asking for the reader to consider certain factors when reading the text, it DOES NOT have to be taken into account. What this introduction does, what this "statement of intent/ purpose" is doing, is acting as assurance to the author. If the author knows that something in their text may be interpreted as something they had no intention for, then the introduction would ask the reader to take into account certain factors/ circumstances when reading that part/ section/ extract. It has nothing to do with "controlling" what people think or feel or interpret the text as, however, it is asking you to see things from the perspective of the author when reading the text. Instead, what we have are people who are so fond of freedom that they'd sooner take a text, something someone has put their heart into; and critique it, deconstruct it, all for the sake of finding meaning...and as if this were not enough, on top of all this, there exist people in the world set on interpreting certain things as something they're not, and then bringing down the credibility of the author through negative criticism. THIS is the world we live in today! THIS is the sacred art of literary criticism."
Thus ended my seige. The class remained quiet for what seemed a long time. I think the point had hit home, and i also think some thought me a complete idiot for having gone on such a aggressive defence. A friend sitting beside me had looked at me with a smirk when i had started. Gradually the smirk left his face, and by the end of my monologue, the look was indescribable. My other friend, sitting next to him, on the other hand, watched the effect of my words take over the class. She, being of the same mind, was unpurturbed and even smiled at me afterwards. Deborah, our tutor; who understood my stance on english literature criticism from last year second semester, was trying hard to break the silence, and i cannot help but feel as though i may have crossed a line, which even she, despite understanding my argument, would not have crossed. At least, not in the manner which i did.
The point, very loosely, i was trying to make was: Modern day criticism techniques are not just set on the deconstruction and analysis of a text for the sake of enhancing meaning. Modern day criticism techniques are also set on "passing judgement" on a text, and stating the "value" of that text. Undoubtedly, there may be some very poorly written books. However, i return to Anton Ego's words: "In many ways the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and theirselves to our judgement. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that in the grand scheme of things the average peice of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so..."
The challenges many authors face is simple. Writing for the masses means that there are certain conventions, certain events, certain themes that can be included, that should be included, to ensure the success of a novel. Many authors, in fact all authors, devote their time and effort to writing, and subsequently, perfecting their work, till it is put to the press. Having their intentions dictated, their work altered by strange hands, often several times, and after putting in their time and effort to providing a source of entertainment, the author is the subjected to criticism. Not only from the readers, but from the critics as well. Their work, the art- work, their master- piece, is deconstructed, and examined in the most ruthless and unjust way, by BOTH people and critics alike. Rather than enjoy "Art for Art's sake" the people and the critics would prefer to analyse and create dellusions in the minds, by creating false meanings and interpretations of themes/ events and commentaries in the text.
The problem, i believe, is that: even in criticism, critics will look at different things as well. What one will percieve as important, another may disregard as insignificant. What critics fail to see is the importance of the text as a whole. What they fail to realise, because they are so set on criticising, is that the unity of the text is just as important as the individual factors/ elements of a novel and a story, which make up the whole, unifying idea of "novel". However, modern day criticism methods judge a book by how well it perfoms in various areas/ elements, which make up the whole. Furthermore, it is from the individual elements, and how the text and the author have performed in each, from whence the final judgement is made. No critic, nowdays, has judged, or will judge the "value" of a text by combining all the elements of the text, along with the effort of the author, to make a final judgement. The days of enjoying Art for the sake of Art are long gone. In their place have come the days of utter distaste, and a common goal for the destruction of all art that is meaningful.
Monday, March 16, 2009
A Curse For Life Pt.6: Crowns (Continued)
The Patriarch and the Tsarevitch Nikolas stayed out till it was time for dinner. They had walked throughout the entire gardens in the Palace grounds, and were still deep in conversation when they returned again. They both retreated to their rooms in the Palace to prepare for dinner. The Patriarch took longer to get ready, but Nikolas wasn't waiting long, outside his state- rooms. When the pair eventually did make it to the banquet hall they found the rest of the family waiting for them. They both stood just inside the threshold; Nikolas bowed to the Tsar- to- be, and the Patriarch inclined his head slightly.
"We are graced by the presence of our beloved Nikolas and our beloved Patriarch, at last!" taunted Alexander. Tikhon looked at his cousin, an unimpressed look upon his face; this took a lot of practice, because the will to laugh was still very strong.
"The next time you come to confession remind me to keep track of time, i may, conveniantly, be needed elsewhere half- way through." Stated Tikhon. He looked into his cousins' eyes, this made it easier for him not to laugh. At least, not straight away. Alexander's face was unreadable. He was waiting for a tell- tale sign that his cousin was joking with him. He didn't see it. Alexander looked down at his plate. He'd lost his apetite all of a sudden. Just as he was about to make a move to get out of his seat, at the head of the table, he heard a muffled sound. When Alexander looked up again he saw the Patriarch red from laughter with tears in his eyes. Alexander looked to Nikolas, who was sitting next to the Patriarch. Nikolas was also in tears of laughter. Alexander got slightly annoyed at being played.
"You i can't do anything about," he pointed to the Patriarch, who was still laughing.
"YOU, on the other hand," he turned on Nikolas, who immediately stopped laughing and hung his head.
"Have not acted in the most respectful way today. Just because His Holiness is able to make a joke of things, it does not mean you may as well. I am still your father, and more importantly, your Tsar, you will respect me! Do you understand?" It was more a statement, but Nikolas seemed inclined to correct his father.
"Tsar- to- be, you're not the Tsar yet, you'll only be Tsar when you're coronated, and that hasn't happend yet-"
"What did you say!" Interjected Alexander fiercely.
"He told you the truth, you are his father, and as his father he will respect you. Until you are coronated, Alexander, do not presume to give yourself the title of "Tsar", that blessing you don't have yet. As to the way Nikolas acted today, if you'd have had the patience to wait till after dinner, Nikolas was fully prepared to apologise to you for the disrespect he caused you. He will apologise for his actions, but you remember, Alexander, the next time you go casting the first stone, make sure you are as innocent as the one being stoned."
Alexander got out of his seat, enraged.
"You presume to much, Steph-"
"DON'T YOU DARE!" The Patriarch was in his seat still, but he spoke with warning. Slowly, Tikhon turned to stare Alexander down. Alexander turned red slightly. He'd forgotten himself.
"My sincerest apologies, i didn't mean disrespect to you Holiness...i....i forgot myself-"
"So you did," Tikhon cut in without caring.
"It seems you have it in your mind that being your cousin means you are exempt from certain practices and customs, for example, refering to me by my canonical title. Let me remind you, Alexander, in case you've forgotten. I am the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church. Whilst i am your cousin, you will NOT forget what preceeds my familial duties. I am NOT an Imperial member any more, I am NOT your cousin, I am your Patriarch. You will do well to remember that!" Calmly, the Patriarch stood up and left the table, without turning back to face the Tsar- to- be. Just as he reached the threshold he turned back.
"Nikolas," he called firmly, his voice reverberating off the walls, that it magnified the intensity of his tone.
"Yes Holiness?" responded Nikolas at once, standing up.
"I will hear you apologise to your father for the way you behaved today, and you will come to my study after dinner so that i may complete your confession." Nikoas nodded then turned to face his father. Alexander looked at his son. He saw that the apology hadn't been rehearsed. Nikolas was hesitating before every sentence, to organise his thoughts. The apology simple, yet humble and concise. Alexander accepted the apology, and smiled slightly towards his son. When Alexander looked towards the entrance to the bansquet hall, the Patriarch had already dissappeared. He heaved a sigh, and sat down again.
"We are graced by the presence of our beloved Nikolas and our beloved Patriarch, at last!" taunted Alexander. Tikhon looked at his cousin, an unimpressed look upon his face; this took a lot of practice, because the will to laugh was still very strong.
"The next time you come to confession remind me to keep track of time, i may, conveniantly, be needed elsewhere half- way through." Stated Tikhon. He looked into his cousins' eyes, this made it easier for him not to laugh. At least, not straight away. Alexander's face was unreadable. He was waiting for a tell- tale sign that his cousin was joking with him. He didn't see it. Alexander looked down at his plate. He'd lost his apetite all of a sudden. Just as he was about to make a move to get out of his seat, at the head of the table, he heard a muffled sound. When Alexander looked up again he saw the Patriarch red from laughter with tears in his eyes. Alexander looked to Nikolas, who was sitting next to the Patriarch. Nikolas was also in tears of laughter. Alexander got slightly annoyed at being played.
"You i can't do anything about," he pointed to the Patriarch, who was still laughing.
"YOU, on the other hand," he turned on Nikolas, who immediately stopped laughing and hung his head.
"Have not acted in the most respectful way today. Just because His Holiness is able to make a joke of things, it does not mean you may as well. I am still your father, and more importantly, your Tsar, you will respect me! Do you understand?" It was more a statement, but Nikolas seemed inclined to correct his father.
"Tsar- to- be, you're not the Tsar yet, you'll only be Tsar when you're coronated, and that hasn't happend yet-"
"What did you say!" Interjected Alexander fiercely.
"He told you the truth, you are his father, and as his father he will respect you. Until you are coronated, Alexander, do not presume to give yourself the title of "Tsar", that blessing you don't have yet. As to the way Nikolas acted today, if you'd have had the patience to wait till after dinner, Nikolas was fully prepared to apologise to you for the disrespect he caused you. He will apologise for his actions, but you remember, Alexander, the next time you go casting the first stone, make sure you are as innocent as the one being stoned."
Alexander got out of his seat, enraged.
"You presume to much, Steph-"
"DON'T YOU DARE!" The Patriarch was in his seat still, but he spoke with warning. Slowly, Tikhon turned to stare Alexander down. Alexander turned red slightly. He'd forgotten himself.
"My sincerest apologies, i didn't mean disrespect to you Holiness...i....i forgot myself-"
"So you did," Tikhon cut in without caring.
"It seems you have it in your mind that being your cousin means you are exempt from certain practices and customs, for example, refering to me by my canonical title. Let me remind you, Alexander, in case you've forgotten. I am the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church. Whilst i am your cousin, you will NOT forget what preceeds my familial duties. I am NOT an Imperial member any more, I am NOT your cousin, I am your Patriarch. You will do well to remember that!" Calmly, the Patriarch stood up and left the table, without turning back to face the Tsar- to- be. Just as he reached the threshold he turned back.
"Nikolas," he called firmly, his voice reverberating off the walls, that it magnified the intensity of his tone.
"Yes Holiness?" responded Nikolas at once, standing up.
"I will hear you apologise to your father for the way you behaved today, and you will come to my study after dinner so that i may complete your confession." Nikoas nodded then turned to face his father. Alexander looked at his son. He saw that the apology hadn't been rehearsed. Nikolas was hesitating before every sentence, to organise his thoughts. The apology simple, yet humble and concise. Alexander accepted the apology, and smiled slightly towards his son. When Alexander looked towards the entrance to the bansquet hall, the Patriarch had already dissappeared. He heaved a sigh, and sat down again.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
