You too will become drunk; you will go into hiding and seek refuge from the enemy.

While no one will ever confuse Stephenie Meyer with being in the same league as such great authors as Homer, Virgil, Dante, Milton, Shakespeare, etc., there is some thought in her books that can be illuminated for the purposes of examination.  On her blog, Meyer writes concerning the third book in her Twilight Saga: Eclipse, “Jacob doesn’t have a tragic flaw. He has one goal and one hope. His goal is to save Bella’s life. His hope is that he’ll win her heart in the process. He fails at both. But that doesn’t mean he regrets trying. If he could do it over again, he’d do the same thing.” However, upon closer examination it would appear that the author of the book doesn’t quite seem to understand her own characters, or is too blinded by her affections for her character to adequately evaluate them. Eclipse is a tragedy and in particular is the tragedy of Jacob.

The book begins with a letter from Jacob to Bella; Jacob has alienated himself from Bella because of choices made at the end of New Moon. Effects of Jacob’s actions are at the center of the beginning of the story, rather than what caused those effects we see that Bella is grounded and her boyfriend Edward unable to come over except under certain guidelines. Jacob is immature, but this is not what brings about his demise throughout the course of the story. Rather, Jacob’s arrogance and jealousy is what brings about his tragic fall. It is a flaw in Jacob’s character that causes him to fall, not events outside of his control. He spends the entire book attempting to win over Bella, yet his own nature gets in the way of convincing Bella (if he even could) to leave Edward for him. Above all other characters in the book, Jacob is the most flawed of all. While Edward can make it appear he is comfortable with Bella going on to the reservation to visit Jacob, Jacob is never fully convincing that he is ok with Bella leaving to go back to Edward.While Meyer attributes Jacob’s flaw to his age, yet Jacob’s attitude throughout the book demonstrates that age alone is not what causes his fall from grace.

While Bella is the main character of the story, Eclipse is more about Jacob and Edward than it is about Bella; albeit the story is about Jacob and Edward in relation to Bella. The eclipse of the story is that of Jacob, who as a werewolf represents the moon but also represents the sun in regards to Bella who, if she chose to be with him, would be able to step out into the sunlight as often as she would want. Jacob is eclipsed not only by himself, but by Edward who passes in front of Jacob and blocks out his radiance.  Edward is so successful in his eclipse of Jacob that Jacob opts to run off at the end of the book rather than stick around and be the friend that Bella needs. Jacob eclipses himself when Bella admits at the end of the story that she does in fact love Jacob; this fact actually hurts him rather than helps. By realizing that she loves Jacob, she realizes the threat he poses to her happiness with Edward. Had Jacob chosen to pursue only friendship with Bella, he may have found a way to continue being a part of her life. The whole course of the book leads to the point where Jacob has so fallen that he believes his only option is to run away and never return. In addition, Jacob’s choice to fight for Bella causes him to act in such a way, that had he not chosen to fight, may have allowed Bella to see that he in fact may have been better for her.

Like the great tragic figure Hector from Homer’s Iliad, Jacob can’t get past himself in order to do what is ultimately the most correct action to take. Where as Hector chooses to leave the safety of Troy’s walls and eventually is slain by Achilles, Jacob chooses to leave the safety of his friendship with Bella to do battle with Edward. Meyer explains that Jacob believes he must take these actions, and therefore does not have a tragic flaw. Yet it is the very undertaking of his attempt to win over Bella that directly leads to his decline. If the story is seen in the light of the story of Jacob, there is no rise for the character. The entire story is one continuous decline  for Jacob.  Like Dante in Dante’s Inferno, Jacob finds himself in the middle of the forest. He is lost and cannot find his way back to an even keel.  The tragedy of Jacob isn’t that Bella chooses Edward, or that Edward wins Bella, but rather that he loses Bella completely and destroys himself.

To understand Eclipse properly, one must look at the character of Jacob and understand that the story is the Tragedy of Jacob. Jacob alone is the character who brings about his own tragic fall. Rather than a victim of circumstances, Jacob creates the circumstances under which he declines. Jacob’s tragic flaw is his immaturity, because it is what constantly steps in front of him and prevents Jacob from seeing logic and reason. The “eclipse” of Jacob is twofold, first that Edward eclipses him, but also that Jacob eclipses himself and blocks Bella from seeing the guy she became such close friends with. Bella and Edward are only side characters, as the story is fueled by what Jacob continues to do in order to win Bella. Stephenie Meyer severely lacks the knowledge of her characters and her story in believing that Jacob is without a tragic flaw, or that the story is not entirely centered around him and his fall.

Published in: on March 25, 2010 at 01:21  Comments (7)  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Themes in American Culture–100th Post!!

The notion of demonic presence is as old as humanity. Likewise, the idea that man can be changed into a demonic creature is similarly as old as humanity. The most prominent of these creatures that man may be changed into is the Vampire. Traditionally, the vampire has been a creature of the night, generally grotesque looking and sometimes in the form of an incubus or succubus. With the rise of Christianity those legends were often morphed to fit Christian understanding of evil in the world. And while the stories of vampires have spanned every epoch in human history, none have had the effect of Bram Stocker’s Dracula. This late Romantic period novel brought to the forefront the legends of the Romanian vampire in the person of Romania’s most prominent hero Vlad Dracula. American obsession with vampires is no less than that of Europeans. Our own understanding of vampires has been influenced by themes in American history dating back to the earliest explorers of our shores. Spanish and French obsession with finding the fountain of youth, English religious fears of eternal damnation and in particular those demands of society in regards to sexuality have all influenced our understanding as Americans, and directly influenced our view of Vampires. From Dracula’s earliest appearances on American cinema in 1931, to the present-day vampires of TV/Book/Movies such as Interview with the Vampire, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, True Blood, Vampire Diaries and Twilight we have seen vampires as young, vibrant, and gorgeous creatures akin to angels.

When Spanish and French explorers first reached our shores in the early part of the 16th century they were told stories of wondrous things by the Native Americans whom they encountered. Among those stories were things such as the City of Gold, and the Fountain of Youth. Ponce de Leon, a Spanish conquistador, heard stories of the Fountain of Youth from the inhabitants of Puerto Rico. He eventually found himself on the American mainland in Florida searching for the famed fountain. Unfortunately, he died in vain trying to find the source of eternal youth and beauty. That search has never stopped for Americans, as the billion dollar a year industry of plastic surgery promises to make the old look young, the ugly look beautiful. Somewhere down the long line of Vampire legend, a creature that began in some cultures as an incubus or succubus and later became corporal in the form of a demonic ugly creature became the angelic, youthful looking creature we know and love today. As late as the 1920’s, the German movie Nosferatu showed the famed Count Dracula in the form of something akin to Joss Whedon’s “Uber Vamp” from Buffy the Vampire Slayer season 7.

Yet when America released Dracula in 1931 Bela Lugosi was far from the creature portrayed in century old myths. That trend has continued to this day, rarely is an American movie or television show depicting vampires willing to show us a Nosferatu vampire. If they do, then the vampire is typically a bad guy or at least not American. Our representation of vampires as young, typically no older than 30 and beautiful demonstrates a trend in American history. As a nation we are young compared to our European counterparts, and even our colonization began after most of the Latin American countries or even Canada was colonized. We see ourselves as a young, vibrant people capable of those same exploits that are common among the young. This is especially true since the 1960’s and the Presidency of John F. Kennedy. In particular, the vampires of the more popular legends of recent times have almost unanimously been turned in their early 20s. This is especially true for Louis in Interview with the Vampire, Angel and Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Edward from the Twilight Saga to name just a few.

Yet, Vampires in American popular culture also represent another theme found consistently in American history. When the territory of what are now the states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut were first colonized by Englishmen, those settles came with the express desire to worship God according to their own religious beliefs. Coming from the same vein as religious reformer John Calvin, the English settlers of those present-day states believed in double predestination, the belief that one is either damned to Hell or saved, and lead to a string of thought concerning salvation. This is most evident in Nathanial Hawthrone’s epic work The Scarlet Letter, where the main characters struggle with their decision to commit adultery and how to regain God’s favor after committing such a grievous sin. In part, Hawthrone was attempting to exercise his own demons and regain God’s favor for his family who had participated in the Salem Witch Trials (his ancestor was one of the Judges.) This theme of redemption and salvation has continued in American culture in the popular form of vampires. Anne Rice’s Louis struggles with questions concerning his own status of whether he is damned or saved, and strives to live a life worthy of salvation. Joss Whedon’s Angel and Spike go a step further than any other vampire in lore by regaining their immortal soul. Even other vampires such as those found in the Twilight Saga, the Vampire Diaries and the Southern Vampire (Sookie Stackhouse) books all struggle with their own impending damnation in the same manner as Hawthrone’s characters do in The Scarlet Letter.

Whether explicitly religious or not, the question of salvation continuously comes up throughout American culture. For example, in a speech given on board the ship that would take the first settlers of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, John Winthrop delivered what is possibly the most well known lines, “For we shall be as a city upon a hill…” These lines have been present in the American conscience and even appeared over three hundred years later, this time uttered by President Ronald Reagan. The idea that America was to be a New Jerusalem, that example for all other nations to esteem to and receive salvation is important to understanding America. The vampire went from being a creature of the devil, devoid of any and all chance of forgiveness and salvation in old world myths to the American example of the utterly damned creature defying his nature and attaining salvation. In particular, this theme is found since Anne Rice first published her tale Interview with the Vampire. Since then Joss Whedon introduced not one but two vampires who are able to regain the one thing that makes humans unique amongst all other creatures: their souls. The vampire has become for Americans a vehicle for working out or problems with our future after we die.

America, the land of infinite possibilities, has found itself also as the place where one can find eternal youth and final salvation. The old world struggle for eternal beauty and salvation have been personified by the American vampire and intrinsically woven into the very character of America. These two themes are so interwoven into the American Dream that they are the basis upon which we strive for the flashy car, the expensive house, the beautiful spouse and everything else that goes into the American Dream. The myth of the Vampire is as old as man himself; and in contemporary America we have made the vampire the archetype by which we can work out our unfulfilled desires for ever lasting life.

Published in: on March 18, 2010 at 17:04  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Measure of Love: She’s Out of My League

We’re all familiar with the age old saying that you ought to marry within your means. There is something to be said about marrying someone who is within one’s means. Often times when people of completely different worlds come together they find that love isn’t enough to keep them together, but rather they are faced with numerous problems. But is physical appearance one of those things that should exclude the possibility of a relationship between two people, or is it something that can be over looked under the right circumstances? It’s not totally uncommon for one describe a member of the opposite sex as being a perfect 10, or a 0 or whatever other number we can devise. In the movie She’s out of My League, now out in wide release, we find yet another example of where it is assumed a relationship won’t work because of the differences in physical appearance. Yet, this movie demonstrates the very principles that show looks are not the only thing that matters when it comes to a relationship.

As is mentioned in the Communization of Thought it is sometimes necessary to indoctrinate people into a certain way of thinking in order to allow for the peaceful coexistence of man in society. One of those unfortunate indoctrinations is the question of beauty and ugliness. From the time we are in elementary school we already exercise our knowledge of the beautiful and the ugly in a game of cooties. Children go around claiming that each other have cooties, typically in a class room setting this is done with the children who are some what lacking in beauty by those who are not. By the time high school hits those going into athletics or cheerleading must date each other, and those joining the chess team and band must date each other. We allow our physical characteristics to interfere with our ability to have a meaningful relationship with someone of the opposite sex, or friendship with someone of the same sex. It is an unfortunate defect of our indoctrination that we fall into this trap of rating each other based on our looks.

In She’s Out of My League this classification of beauty continues and this code is enforced even amongst a group of less than attractive nerds who are friends with each other. When Kirk meets Molly, who has left her phone in one of those bins you’re expected to place your belongings in while being violated by TSA, Kirk’s friend Stainer believes that they shouldn’t be dating because he is a “5″ and she is a “hard 10.” Stainer’s belief is that Kirk should only date another 5, a 7, 6, 4, or 3 but nothing more than 7 because his looks aren’t able to compensate past that. Like wise, Molly shouldn’t attempt to date anyone below an 8 because her looks are too much for someone below that. Of course looks alone don’t determine one’s ranking for Stainer, because if you drive a cool car, have a cool job, or have a cool hobby like playing in a band that can elevate one’s ranking (after all we know that the ugliest of musicians and actors/actresses can still land the most attractive of people…) Stainer enforces the code so much against his friend that Kirk finds himself looking for a defect in Molly to justify their being together. To his misfortune, attempting to find a defect only drives Molly away.

Yet Stainer isn’t the only one guilty of enforcing a silly code on his friend. Patty, Molly’s best friend, believes that Molly’s interest in Kirk can’t be real. Instead, after being hurt by her ex boyfriend Cam, Molly is only dating Kirk because he is safe (namely, he wouldn’t do something like cheat because who would go for Kirk) as Patty believes it to be. Her belief is something shared by us all as well; we see a beautiful woman or a handsome man with someone far less attractive than them then it must be a charity case or a safe move. Patty goes so far as to insist Molly will want the “rescue” phone call on her andKirk’s first solo date. To her shock and disbelief Molly ignores her phone call. And despite all of Kirk’s foibles and mess ups, Molly keeps going back to him despite the logic Patty is certain is flawless. While Molly may have in fact originally pursued Kirk because she thought he might be safe, she ends up taking him back even after he hurts her time and again.

The beliefs spouted by Stainer and Patty in She’s Out of My League invariably lead to the same outcome as the movie demonstrates. When one believes that they aren’t worthy of being with someone else, they do whatever it takes to find a reason. Those who date someone because they think it safe while they recover from a bad break up often find themselves in a rebound situation where they have to intentionally break the hurt of their safety net because they find themselves falling for that net. She’s Out of My League does a remarkable job of showing the flaws in believing that person A can’t be with person B because of things like looks. It also shows that when we put aside our prejudices, we can find remarkable people on the other side of what we were indoctrinated to not like.

Published in: on March 18, 2010 at 01:04  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Review: She’s Out of My League

To begin, let me explain that She’s Out of My League (wide release) is a teen comedy of the typical variety; this post will contain spoilers.

That begin said, I thought this movie did a great job of telling it’s story without falling victim to the temptation to make the movie stupid like so many in this genre end up doing. Let me first introduce the story to you. She’s Out of My League introduces us to a character named Kirk and his friends Stainer, Devon and Jack who all work at the local airport in Pittsburgh, PA. Kirk and Stainer are both TSA agents while Devon works as a ticket salesman for an airline and Jack is a baggage loader. We find out that Kirk wants to get back together with his ex Marnie. Through a series of events Kirk learns that Marnie doesn’t want to get back together with him. During this time we are introduce to Kirk’s father, mother, brother, sister-in-law and Marnie’s new Boyfriend who more or less all live with Kirk’s parents. Enter Molly, a beautiful blonde who comes into the Pittsburgh airport on her way to New York. Kirk comes to Molly’s rescue when he helps fend off his superior who is trying to hit on Molly and later Kirk finds Molly’s phone, which she left at the security check point. Through these series of events Molly falls for Kirk and they begin to see each other. Eventually they have a falling out over Kirk’s inability to believe someone like Molly would want to be with him  and he retreats back and wins back Marnie. By movie’s end though Molly and Kirk are back together to live happily ever after. Throughout the movie Kirk experiences a number of falls such as,  prematurely ejaculating  during his and Molly’s first intimate moment and then quickly running out of her apartment after a few embarassing moments with Molly’s parents and sister. Later on Kirk finds himself with his foot in his mouth as he rips Molly a part for her choice to be with him and not someone more worthy of her.

While this movie is on the whole a light hearted, at times intelligent romantic comedy it has a few key moments of coming close to destroying itself like so many other comedies have done in recent years. A lot of comedies these days have a need to introduce a character who is on a roid rage trying to destroy the lead male who is pursuing the beautiful woman. Yet this movie restrains itself, there is an over bearing ex boy friend who one may believe will end up being that psycho who attacks Kirk but She’s Out of My League introduces the ex boyfriend (Cam played by Geoff Stults), plays around with Kirk and then simply has Cam gracefully step out. Even a great comedy such as Wedding Crashers was unable to stop itself from stepping over the line on this particular point. Most comedies this day would rather have an antagonist who is so over the top it makes it impossible to believe anyone would be like that. Most writers of comedy seem to forget that an antagonist isn’t necessarily needed in this genre because the story moves itself along through the foibles of the would be hero.

The closest this movie comes to being unbearably stupid happens on the final fall of our hero. While becoming intimate with each other our beautiful girl (Molly played by Alice Eve) and our hero Kirk  get into a “defect” showing contest trying to prove who is less than perfect. With Mollys defect (webbed feet) we  could find ourselves in a terribly cliche moment such as in Whatever It Takes (2000) where the object of the hero’s affections has to shave a mustache. Yet once again,  She’s Out of My League turns this episode  into a half way intelligent argument about the ability of two people of opposite ends of the attraction scale to be in a relationship. Ultimately they come to the conclusion that they can’t be together, not because either is necessarily so much better than the other, but because Kirk suffers from a severe inferiority complex. Let’s face it, a woman as beautiful as Molly, or for that matter any comedic beautiful girl, would never date someone like Kirk.

But this movie is the quintessential comedy where the ugly, wimpy, terribly flawed guy goes through humorous adventures only to find himself slaying the proverbially dragon and rescuing the beautiful princess.While some may say that these types of comedies are boring, and often unintelligent, it is by far the most refreshing thing I have seen in comedy for a long time. More often than not this incident would be made into a farse while ignoring the intelligent angles that could be pursued. While the purpose of the comedy is to make light of the troubles of the hero, too often today comedies attempt to diminish not only the hero but the object of his affection. What comes out is a comedy not worth the movie it was made with. For better or worse, this movie stays on the straight path instead of finding itself out in the middle of the woods.

Possibly the only down side of this entire movie is the family who is so over the top that they could have easily ruined the movie had they been on screen any more than they were. Thankfully Kirk’s disfunctional family, his ex girlfriend and her new boyfriend are only shown to the audience enough to demonstrate that Kirk’s foibles may be something he learned, rather than something a part of his nature. His family’s role in the movie is just right, to show the audience what it is Kirk is attempting to fight off and run away from into the arms of Molly.

Finally we have the friends. I’m sure we all can remember the movie Wedding Crashers that starts out actually quite good but by the end of the movie you are begging not to see Will Farrell enter on screen as the original crasher. Wedding Crashers isn’t the only movie that introduces additional characters who play the part as assistants to the hero and end up making them farsical. The three friends in She’s Out of My League are smart, insightful, and funny while at the same time being properly inferior to the hero of the movie. While they have their moments where one might expect some kind of cheesy outcome, they stay true to their characters and the movie without going overboard.  The friends are an important part of any comedy as the hero is too flawed in the beginning to achieve his goal. Should a comedy employ friends that are themselves unable to really provide the hero with any guidence then the genre falls a part.

In all She’s Out of My League is a cookie cutter comedy, that has moments of becoming cheesy but never falls off the edge into campy, or farsical. The movie does what all comedies try and do, teach a lesson about something in a humourous way while attempting not to show itself as a lesson. In this movie, the lesson is simple: anyone can have anyone they want as long as they believe in themselves. This movie won’t be nominated for any major award and it’ll continue to be destroyed by critics but there is something about this movie that makes it hard to resist. The chemistry between Jay Baruchel and Alice Eve makes it almost seem believable that either of them might end up with the other. She’s Out of My League is a remarkable movie worth while to anyone looking for a light hearted and at times smart comedy.

Published in: on March 14, 2010 at 13:21  Comments (3)  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Too Much Blogging? House on Blogs

I just finished watching tonight’s episode of House, and so there will be spoilers.

Tonight’s episode of House focused around a woman with mysterious symptoms who blogs about everything in her life. Her boyfriend hates that she blogs literally about everything in her life, including him. Thus, the questions are raised about the nature of privacy and the nature of relationships over the internet. There is no question that using a blog makes it easier to discuss parts of one’s life that could never be discussed face to face.

As many of you know I don’t use my blog to discuss personal issues; I once used a Xanga and live journal in my attempts to discuss my personal life. Yet some people do use their blog as a way of communication with the rest of the world because the problems with real relationships create too much drama that can be all but eliminated through online relationships.The internet, and in particular blogs, have offered a chance for older teenagers, and adults to keep online “journals” that the average girl keeps in a private diary. In older times people lived in small towns where the personal details of each others lives were public discourse. As modern society developed, and people moved away from the small towns and into the city where families have grown smaller and smaller we have chosen to expose our lives to perfect strangers the world over. Human beings are by nature political beings, that is we strive for personal relationships and when we have intentionally separated ourselves from that ability to create relationships we find other means of reaching out.

But is there such a thing as using blogs and the internet too much? At one point in my life I lived online; I was online day after day for hours upon hours.  In tonight’s House, the woman blogs about every detail of her life allowing everyone who is online to not only view her life, but the life of her boyfriend, and her views on the doctors around her at the hospital. She has become dependent on the internet, on her blog and the approval of her readers. Today I spoke with my friend Ashok about attempting to find more and more readers. This is the pitfall of the blog and the internet in general. We don’t just strive for relationships, but we want approval of the world. Like anything, the internet can be addicting to the point where we divorce ourselves from the real world in exchange for the creating reality we can make for ourselves online through blogs, chat rooms, facebook, etc.  Blogs are a great way to help share ideas that are marginalized by the main stream. However, when we place our lives at the mercy of blogs and attempt to make them that much more important that they rule our lives they are a danger. Instead, we should recognize that blogs in the end while beneficial in many ways, are not worth living on them. Eventually, the patient in House is forced to limit her blogging or lose her real relationship; not everything should be made public for the whole world.

Published in: on March 8, 2010 at 23:56  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Roman Foreign Policy between 264 and 146 B.C: Why They Fought

From the First Punic War through the Third Punic War there was much change in the reasoning for Rome going to war.  Roman conquest of Italy in the years leading up to the First Punic War gave the Romans confidence about their military power. Their success at unifying most of Italy under the Roman banner must have given them an adrenaline rush to spur them into a war with Carthage in an attempt to take Sicily. Successive wars appear to have been encouraged by Roman desire to dominate trade throughout the Mediterranean world.

Roman involvement in the First Punic War was spurred on by ambition to add Sicily to their territory. The Second Punic War and the wars with Greece were brought on primarily through a desire to dominate trade.  The wars with Spain and the Third Punic War, however, appear to harken back to the desires which spurred on the First Punic War and the Italian wars.

According to Polybius, the First Punic War marked the first time the Romans engaged in sea warfare. Whether or not this is completely true or not does not detract from how important such an idea is to the motives of going to war. There is little doubt that the Romans probably engaged in at least some minimal trade prior to this war. Yet Polybius’ account of the construction of wartime vessels demonstrates that the Romans most likely had not yet engaged in naval battles[1]. If this account is true then the motives for going to war over Sicily were not about trade, at least not entirely. To some degree Rome must have sought to have dominion over Sicily and to remove foreign influence in Italy all together. Polybius’ account of the treaty between Rome and Carthage, which ended the First Punic War, gives further credence to the idea Rome was not fighting for the sole purpose of trade. Polybius says, “’The Carthaginians to evacuate the whole of Sicily…. The Carthaginians to give up to the Romans all prisoners without ransom. The Carthaginians to pay to the Romans by installments in twenty years 2,200 Euboen talents’’[2] Polybius also accounts that the Roman people demanded, “they reduced the time of the payment by one half, added 1,000 talents to the indemnity, and demanded the evacuation by the Carthaginians of all islands lying between Sicily and Italy.”[3] These accounts given by Polybius support the belief that Rome’s first conquest outside of Italy was spurred on by a desire to continue unifying Italy, or at least to expand the territory they possessed.

The Second Punic War and the wars subsequently with Greece on the other hand were almost entirely about improving trade and Roman economic status. The Second Punic War was triggered by Carthaginian interference with a Roman ally in Spain. While the sources concerning the war do not directly demonstrate that this war was about economic gain through trade, it is clear through the terms of the treaty that the war was at least on some level about trade. Polybius once again demonstrates, “they were to surrender their ships of war, with exception of ten triremes.”[4] Without their former naval power the Carthaginians would be hard pressed to continue trading on such a scale as they once enjoyed. This left Rome as the most dominate naval power in the Western Mediterranean both militarily and trade wise. Without war ships the Carthaginians could not protect their trading vessels from pirates and other warring states.

With the Western Mediterranean locked up Rome focused her attention on the Eastern half. Rome’s attempt to subdue the Eastern Mediterranean was not so much like their attempts in the West. Unlike the West, the Romans did not seek to have dominion over the East. Instead the Romans sought to dismantle the alliances and empires throughout the Eastern Mediterranean. By doing this Rome was successful in destroying the economic power of the East. Their tactics with the East resemble in some manner their attempts in Italy to subdue the Latin tribes.

The Third Punic War and the wars with Spanish tribes appear to be more about revenge and expansion of the Empire than about acquisition of wealth. Carthage had been the nail in the Roman’s side for better part of a century. When they finally broke the Treaty of Zama the Romans found the opportunity to finally put Carthage away for good. With Carthage completely destroyed the Romans were able to take dominion over all of North Africa and eliminated the only threat to Roman dominance in the Western Mediterranean for good. If for nothing else the Roman destruction of Carthage demonstrated for her enemies that Rome could, if brought to bear, annihilate any and all foes. The Third Punic War demonstrates an almost entirely unique episode in Roman foreign policy between 264 and 146 B.C. It was not about acquisition of land, nor of furthering trade. Rather the Third Punic War was about revenge for the Romans.

In Spain however, the attempts by the Romans were almost entirely over conquest of land. Unlike Carthage and the Eastern Mediterranean, Spain was not governed by formal empires or kingdoms. With the ever expanding population in Italy, the Romans needed more space for citizens. Spain was the prime location after the Second Punic War. Unfortunately for the Romans the Spanish tribes were troublesome and required a full on assault to attempt to subdue Spain; even then, the Spanish tribes were not completely subdue until the time of Caesar Augustus. Yet Rome’s conquests in Spain were necessary in order to provide more land for her citizens. Not only was this, but Spain was rich in minerals, specifically in silver which was important to the Romans.  However, the Roman desire to conquer Spain was not primarily out of a desire to exploit Spain but rather to incorporate it.

Rome’s foreign policy from 264-146 B.C. was spurred on by two primary motives: expansion and trade. Ultimately, however, the Romans desired to create a Mediterranean wide empire. The true motive behind the Roman foreign policy was simply and purely imperialism. While their foreign policy began with an attempt to have more sovereignty, such as in the First Punic War, it ultimately landed on the need and desire for more territory as was the case in the Spanish wars.

[1] Naphatali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold, Roman Civilization, vol. 1, Selected Readings:  The Republic and the Augustan Age, 3rd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990), 159-160

[2] Lewis 161.

[3] Lewis, 162.

[4] Lewis, 180

Published in: on March 5, 2010 at 22:13  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Alienation in Post World War America

World War II ended with the surrender of the Japanese Empire in late 1945 leaving a wake of destruction on almost every continent. America was elated, not only had they defeated the Nazis but the Japanese were defeated as well. Yet, America’s place in the world changed as a result of the war in a way very few people would have thought possible. Only an up and coming nation in the last World War, the United States emerged from World War II as the preeminent world power. Amidst the jubilation of victory in both theaters of war, Americans had to come to grips not only with America’s new place in the world, but with what had happened in the war to America. The story of Holden Caulfield in The Catcher in the Rye demonstrates the alienation some particular Americans felt in the aftermath of the Second World War.

The beginning of The Catcher in the Rye takes the reader to a boarding school and a character named Holden Caulfield. Holden is arguably one of the most controversial characters in literature, but his story is an important one as it is the story of America after World War II. Holden’s alienation from the rest of the world is central in his story. Throughout most of the story Holden is unable to find the good in the world and insists that everyone he knows or meets is a phony. Holden is a confused young man who is attempting to reconcile the world of his childhood with the world of his young adulthood. At sixteen when the story takes place, Holden was born two years after the stock market crashed and was still too young when the United States entered the Second World War in December, 1941. America, in a lot of ways, has grown up rapidly in the span of Holden’s short life.

The main antagonists in Holden’s life are his roommate Stradlater, his neighbor Ackley, a friend from home Sally, and a pimp and prostitute he meets while staying in New York. In each case, the antagonists choose to ignore the realities of life by distracting themselves with sex, money or theater. Holden faults each character for being a phony, and considers his dead brother Allie, and his younger sister Phoebe as two of the only real people he has ever met. Holden has been affected by the war and its aftermath and maintains a child-like opinion of the world. In fact, he states, “Certain things they should stay the way they are. You ought to be able to stick them in those big glass cases and just leave them alone.”[1] Holden is alienated from those who are his age, or close because of his own inability to grow up. The various encounters Holden has, leaves him more alienated than before. In the case of Sally, Holden contacts her and makes a date only to alienate himself from her by saying to her, “You give me a royal pain in the ass…”[2] Holden is completely unable to maintain friendships and continues to draw further and further away from the world.

As Holden is unable to maintain friendships with anyone he meets, he is also a contradiction. At the beginning of the book he states, “If there’s one thing I hate, it’s the movies.”[3] And yet he goes to see a movie at Radio City after his date with Sally. He goes into the bar at his hotel and has a low opinion of everything about it from where they seat him, to the band, to the patrons.[4] Holden constantly belittles people, places and things only to turn around and clothe himself in them. This further alienates him from the world and people around him as they view him as an immature person.[5] His sense of superiority, which results in his alienation, prevents Holden from having any meaningful relationships with anyone aside from his sister and dead brother Allie.

Holden is so disillusioned with the world around him that the only thing he can think to do is protect those who he views as innocent. Holden’s depression is lifted whenever he is around kids. The first instance the audience sees this is in the streets of New York. On his way to find a record store open on Sundays, Holden follows a family of three. The parents are on the sidewalk and immediately gain the disapproval of Holden when he says, “They looked sort of poor,”[6] which implies that Holden views the family, at least the parents, as beneath him. The child, however, entertains Holden as he is walking behind the family. The child is in the street singing, “‘If a body catch a body coming through the rye.’”[7] The child and song make Holden, “feel better. It made me feel not so depressed any more.”[8] Holden is not alienated from children the way he is from those closer in age to him because he is able to find a truth in children that doesn’t exist for him in his contemporaries.

Holden’s alienation goes even further, to a desire to completely remove himself from society. At first, Holden pleas with Sally to, “drive up to Massachusetts or Vermont….We’ll stay in these cabin camps and stuff like that till the dough runs out…I could get a job somewhere and we could live somewhere with a brook and all….I could chop wood in the wintertime and all.”[9] His feeling of superiority has alienated him not only from any meaningful relationships but also a desire to quit society almost all together. Later on he says, “Everybody’d think I was just a poor deaf-mute bastard and they’d leave me alone. They’d let me put gas and oil in their stupid cars, and they’d pay me a salary and all for it, and I’d build me a little cabin somewhere with the dough I made and live there the rest of my life.”[10] Both times, Holden suggests leaving society to live away from a world he doesn’t fully believe he belongs to.

Holden’s alienation also drives him to attempt to save those he believes he cares most about. In his first desire to leave society, he invites Sally to go with him only to alienate himself from her when she refuses to go with him. Holden also feels a need to assist a roommate at a previous school before he ultimately rejects him. His roommate Dick Slagle is poorer than Holden and doesn’t have as fancy of luggage as he has. Holden describes, “The thing is, it’s really hard to be roommates with people if your suitcases are much better than theirs…”[11] But he goes on to clarify, “You think if they’re intelligent and all, the other person, and have a good sense of humor, that they don’t give a damn whose suitcases are better, but they do.”[12] Holden both creates his own alienation, as in the case of Sally, and is a victim of societies mandated alienation as was the case with the former roommate. Yet in both cases, Holden attempts to save that person from the phony world Holden perceives.

Finally, Holden’s struggle to not care about what others think or do and his desire to save people from their phoniness comes to a head. His sister Phoebe questions whether or not Holden actually likes anything, or if he simply hates everything.[13] As he avoids Phoebe’s questions, she finally prompts him, “All right, name something else. Name something you’d like to be.”[14] And it is here that Holden admits to his desire to protect children and to allow them to maintain their innocence when he tells Phoebe, “I’d just be the catcher in the rye and all.”[15] Holden’s alienation from friends closer in age; his hatred of cars and movies all stem from his own desire to return and protect the innocence of childhood.

Yet, it takes Holden until he has nearly broken down psychologically that he realizes he can’t protect everyone from everything. While on the way to  deliver a note to Phoebe at her school, Holden notices writing on the walls outside the school. He desires to protect the innocence of the children from the writing  and dreams of killing the person responsible for writing obscenities on the school’s walls. The second time he finds the obscenities, however, he realizes that it has been craved into the wall.[16] It is at this point that Holden comes to the realization, “If you had a million years to do it in, you couldn’t rub out even half the ‘Fuck you’ signs in the world. It’s impossible.”[17] He finally realizes that things won’t return to how they were when he was a child and life was simpler. Holden recognizes that the world is full of things he hates and wants to protect others from but it is a fool’s mission to try and protect the world from all the bad.

The story of Holden Caulfield could be analogous to the story of the United States after World War II. Like Holden, the United States was alienated from the rest of the world, including our allies. As the most powerful nation in the world, the United States had a responsibility not shared by her allies. Both the Soviet Union and the allies of the United States differed from the U.S. on many beliefs held by America. The United States, as well as Holden, had to come to grips with the reality of the world. Holden was never going to achieve living in a world where people are exactly as he wants and believes exactly as he believes. Holden is defined by his alienation from the world and how he is finally able to reconcile himself with both the world and people around him.

[1] Salinger, J.D. The Catcher in the Rye (Boston: Little Brown and Company 1951) page 122.

[2] Ibid. 133

[3] Ibid. 2

[4] “they gave me a lousy table anyways…”, “The band was putrid”, “show-offy-looking guys with their dates.” Ibid. 69

[5] “Same old Caulfield. When are you going to grow up?” Ibid, 144

[6] Ibid. 115

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid. 132

[10] Ibid. 199

[11] Ibid. 109

[12] Ibid.

[13] “You don’t like anything that’s happening.” Ibid. 169

[14] Ibid. 172

[15] Ibid. 173

[16] “I saw something that drove me crazy…”, “I went down by a different staircase….” Ibid. 201, 202

[17] Ibid.

Published in: on March 4, 2010 at 01:21  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On the Rightness of our Actions

As I approach my 100th post since beginning this blog, I wish to turn my attention to a serious of topics that I hope will culminate in an exceptional 100th post. With that said, I would like to turn our attention towards the topic of the rightness of our actions. Simply put, whether our actions can be judged morally correct or wrong in relation to their ends, or the action simply. The famous expression taken out of context from Niccolo Machiavelli is that, if the ends justify the means then they are morally acceptable. However, at what point does the end of our actions because judged solely on our means of attaining that end? This statement presupposes that there is nothing else by which to judge our actions. Can this, though, be the case? Friedrich Nietzsche supposes that there is nothing by which we can judge our actions, rather it is up to the Uebermensch to impose his own variety of morality. This question was brought to me through the television show The Secret Life of the American Teenager. As some of you know, I watch that show as well as others including fellow ABC Family show Greek.

To provide some background,  a few episodes back the main character Amy went on a date with a boy, named Jimmy, who she met at the beginning of this part of the season. Amy, fearing that things may become sexual and not wanting to take chances of becoming pregnant yet again acquired condoms. One thing lead to another and Jimmy found those condoms after him and Amy spent time discussing how they did not want to have sex until marriage. Amy was unaware that Jimmy found the condoms, and so when Jimmy stopped calling her she began to worry. Enter her “friends” who suggested that Jimmy didn’t like how Amy kisses, which upset her. The father of her son John, Ricky, attempted to reassure Amy before offering to let her “practice” kissing with him. She accepted the invitation. In the episode three weeks ago, Adrian, who is dating Ricky, found out that Amy was carrying condoms and began to suspect she was having sex. She immediately jumped to the conclusion that Amy and Ricky were having sex, which prompted Adrian to have sex with Amy’s ex-boyfriend Ben. Two episodes ago Adrian and Ricky confronted each other, and she informed him that she had sex with Ben to get back at him for having sex with Amy. Ricky responded by admitting, finally, that he and Amy had simply kissed.

Adrian’s belief is that the sex she had with Ben, the simple act of sex, is in itself not wrong. She also admitted that her having sex with Ben as a way of getting back at Ricky and Amy for allegedly having sex was also not wrong in of itself. Finally, she struggled with admitting that it was wrong even after finding out Ricky and Amy only kissed. This is what lead me to ponder the question of whether or not our actions simply must always be morally right, and whether or not our ends justify the actions we do take. In this instance, whether or not Adrian is correct in assuming that sex by itself is morally wrong, and whether sex as a means of getting back at someone for hurting you is itself wrong.

There are some actions that are themselves not morally wrong in and of themselves. Rather, we must look at the motive behind the act in order to find whether or not that act was acceptable. In this situation, we must look at the kind of sex rather than simply stating sex as sex itself is not morally wrong. However, sex outside of marriage is generally looked upon as being wrong and this is the kind of sex that Adrian and Ben engaged in. This leads to our general quandary, by what means can be determine that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and if we can determine what causes sex out of marriage to be wrong then we can determine if other actions can be judged based on the same principle.

By what measure can we determine sex outside of marriage to be wrong? Our first investigation must turn to the conventional law, often refered to by the Greek word nomoi. These are those laws created by man in his particular political situation. And since, at least in the United States, sex outside of marriage is not classified as illegal it cannot be wrong in accordance with American law. However, some acts are wrong based upon the assumption of the nomoi and therefore those actions can be judged solely based on whether or not the law prohibits them such as murder. The second source by which we can judge actions is through the revealed Law. That Law given to us by God. Since there are three Laws, the Old Law, the New Law and the Law of Islam, we must investigate whether any permit or prohibit premarital sex. Since it is commonly accepted by followers of the Law that premarital sex is in fact wrong, then we can assume that they receive this from the Law itself. This is the same for those things which the Law also explicitly prohibits.

Yet, what of those who are not followers of the Law? Those of non-revealed religions or those lacking faith all together. By what means can they determine the rightness of their actions? It would appear as though parts of the revealed Law are not only found in the books of religion, as there are those nations not followers of the Law that have nomoi akin to the Law. By what means was the Law revealed to them? Accordingly, there are two prime manners in which the Law is revealed to man and that is that it is implanted on his very soul or through his observation of nature. Since according to the revealed Law all things are created by the same God, it must be assumed that all living things are subject in part to the same law. It is found often in nature that some animals mate only with one partner for their entire life. Many pack animals have one male, with multiple females and often times only one female for procreation. In particular with wolves, there is an Alpha male and Alpha female, both are solely responsible for the continuation of their species with each other. Other animals, such as the Emperor Penguin, mates for life similar to the method by which humans have traditionally mated.  Therefore, if we may find examples in nature of the revealed Law then we must assume that it is revealed to all. We may therefore find whether or not our actions are right, not by their ends, but by the Law.

But what then of those people who will state, “But those animals were not married, they simply have sex with each other; can I then mate with only one person the rest of my life as they do?” But what is marriage except the act of procreation? God said unto Adam and Eve, “Go forth and multiple” signaling that they were bound together as man and wife. So to, according to both the nomoi and the Law, when two people get married they are not married until they consummate the marriage. Similarly one might state, “There are examples of animals who have sex with multiple partners, how then can we say that as humans we are expected to remain with only one person?” All living things have an impulse inscribed on their hearts to continue their species through the act of procreation. That impluse exists in human beings, but what makes us different than those animals is that we have the faculty of reason. Our reason controls our passions, and leads us to our right actions. Those who deny that there are overruling laws by which all living things must adhere are denying their reason in favor of their passions. As humans, we are called to advance our species in it’s highest form; quality rather than quantity. This is why God only created Adam and Eve, for if it was intended that man should procreate with multiple females then it would have been proper for God to create multiple females.

It is therefore clear that our actions are not  judged only by whether they right or wrong in relation to their ends, but that there is a standard by which we may judge our actions simply either through conventional law or the Law revealed to us either by religion or through nature, rather than in relation to their ends.

Published in: on March 3, 2010 at 01:19  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,