TASK 1
This story has a lot of details, which is something that realism has a a lot of. Realists like to break everything down and really take it piece by piece describing everything. The story really vividly explains what she sees, hears, and smells while she’s at her window just starting to mourn her husband’s death. It says, “She could see in the open square before her house the tops of trees that were all aquiver with the new spring life. The delicious breath of rain was in the air. In the street below a peddler was crying his wares. The notes of a distant song which some one was singing reached her faintly, and countless sparrows were twittering in the eaves.” In that quote, it didn’t just say that she looked out side and was looking at everything and proceed on with what she did next, she put the story in slow motion and described the setting just like it would have been if you were there. Everything that you smelled and heard was put into words. She also explains very detailed about when she is feeling a great joy due to the realization she’s about to have.
Choplin is really focusing on a non gender role environment. You know, she’s saying that this woman is just so sad because she “won’t have anyone to live for the years to come for”, but then the woman goes on to realize that that’s just it. That she doesn’t have to live for anyone but herself. At the end of the story, her husband walks in the door and it says that, “He stood amazed at Josephine's piercing cry” and she ends up dying of heart failure. I think that Choplin used such a dramatic ending because that’s how she feels about the role women take on. She maybe thinks that it’s devastating that women feel like they have to live for somebody else and that they don’t gain full self independence. By using this, she’s definitely trying to make people at least think about the possibility of not living for somebody else.
TASK 2
Wow, that was a very descriptive story. During the first part of the story I thought that it was going to turn out being very hopes and unchanging through out the end. Then, after I finished reading it, my opinion totally changed. I think that what he was trying to make his readers get out of the story was this one moral: You can go through the hardest times and the absolutely worst stuff, but don’t lose hope; hope and courage will get you through if you can just hold on. He was talking about how his “owner broke him” emotional, physically, and mentally, but then proceeded to talk about how after this tiny little thing that gave him the littlest bit of hope (the root), he had courage to stand up for him self.
He really explained very vividly the first attack by Mr. Covey when he almost passed out in the field. He says, “He gave me another kick, and again told me to rise. I again tried, and succeeded in gaining my feet: but, stopping to get the tub with which I was feeding the fan, I again staggered and fell.” Right there he could have just said that I fell when I tried to get up, but he really wanted you to feel like you’re there. You didn’t have to wonder about anything or imagine anything, because he tells you all about it right there.
One of the social issues that Douglass wanted to change was that of slavery (which is the obvious one), but also, I think one that is kind of hidden is about having courage. He wants more people to stop giving up and being broken. He tries to change people’s opinion on this by showing that even though the slave wasn’t free physically, he was in a way. He was free spiritually and emotionally because he something that he didn’t have before. I’m sure that we can all just go ahead and assume what that one thing was, can we not?
TASK 3
For this last part of our realism project, I chose the song, or rap, called “Till the End”, by Lloyd Banks. This song, in my opinion, is an exact replica of realism, or at least from my understanding of what realism is. Lloyd is bringing up problems that are going on not only in the place where he grew up, but all of over the world. He states these things very casually and just kind of throws them in your face. He says, “You look behind you when you turn the corna cause death has promised ya you seen some niggas go before ya”. He’s bringing up the death of young people. He’s not trying to sugar coat it, but he’s saying that there are definitely places where you have to watch your back as you go around the corner. You’ve seen all these people die this way and death gives no mercy.
Another example of realism that really stands out to me is, “I never really smile much if you was here you'd know why; there's frustration and fire if you look in my eye”. He’s trying to address the problem of the hard times that people have been through, and also how it still affects you. Many people live through so many situations that are just so awful that they are numbing, but you can see it in your face. He’s not trying to make it seem like everything is okay and it’s not really that big of deal. He’s saying that the depression and hard times are here and there not okay. He’s saying that they haven’t left and they never will.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Transcendentalists
TASK 1
Nature – Ralph Waldo
I really liked this piece of writing because I feel like it’s really reaching out to me in the way that nature does. The poem states, “In the presence of nature, a wild delight runs though the man, in spite of real sorrows”. This means a lot to me because I feel exactly what it’s talking about. When the sun is shining, after a rainy day or even if it’s just another sunny day, it brightens up my mood and makes me feel so good. It really is like a jolt of “wild delight” runs through my body the whole day. I think that’s why I liked the poem so much. It expresses nature the way that it should be. Not a place out in the middle of nowhere that we haven’t claimed yet, but as the beautiful unclaimed and serine land that it is. That right there is truly beautiful to me.
This poem gives off a special kind of vibe to me as well. It says that “In the wilderness I find something more dear and connate than in the streets of villages”. It’s just so true what the poet is saying here. You can’t find anything more pure, unclaimed, and truly beautiful than being out in the wilderness. It’s a totally different world than ANYWHERE else that you could be. In all, I loved this poem because I could truly relate to what they were saying about nature and how it affects people.
This poem is an exact example of a transcendentalist piece of work, which is the reason it was chosen for us to read for our transcendentalist project, obviously. The essay states, “The lover of nature is he whose inward and outward senses are still truly adjusted to each other; who has retained the spirit of infancy even into the era of manhood. His intercourse with heaven and Earth becomes part of his daily food. In the presence of nature, a wild delight runs through the man, in spite of real sorrows”. This quote is saying how a man of nature is a peace and connected by mind and soul and that this man of nature had held onto his pureness from his child or “infancy” stage. The transcendentalists believed that everyone was pure and didn’t believe in original sin. It’s saying that god is in nature, and that a man of nature makes it his life, day in and day out with god by his side in his creation. These words are those of a transcendentalist because they believe that god communicates to man through nature, so when this man in the poem is saying how a wild delight runs through him regardless of real sorrows, they’re saying that god is with him in his nature; through his sorrows.
Self-Reliance
This poem was a little hard for men to read at first, but after reading it aloud…twice…I got a better grip on what it was trying to say. From my point of view, the author was trying to let us understand that when we step into the world, society, we are almost ashamed of what we represent. We feel like it doesn’t really match with the world, and so (sometimes subconsciously) we don’t put forth our whole effort in what we do. The essay states, “We but half express our self, and are ashamed of that divine idea which each of us represents”. That says to me that the author wants to let us know that we are capable of being “divine” or that our thoughts about what we stand for are capable of being divine”.
I actually liked this essay and the things that Waldo was trying to say to his readers. A message that stuck out to me is, “There is a time in every man’s education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide”. This is really an important thing for us to learn, because you of course can admire or “envy” someone else’s work, but why not admire your own. When he says that imitation is suicide, I got out of it that you need not create someone else’s creation, but you should be original. All of this just goes back to what he was saying earlier about how when we step into society not matching everyone else in the world. The most beautiful thing is something that is your own created with your best and truest efforts. That right there is the all together summary of what the essay meant to me, which made it harsh in a way, but also an eye opener if you read it with an open mind.
Like the transcendentalists, the essay, Self Reliance, is about individuality and doing your best and most genuine job at everything that you do. It states, “A man is relieved and gay when he has put his heart into his work and done his best; but what he has said or done otherwise, shall give him no peace. It is a deliverance which does not deliver. In the attempt his genius deserts him; no muse befriends; no invention; no hope”. This statement really exemplifies what Waldo was trying to get across. The transcendentalists believed in doing things that are done with your full heart and are truly your best. They also believed that all that doesn’t matter if you have said or done something for one reason or another that contradicts what you’ve accomplished. So like the transcendentalist believed, so did Waldo. The statement above says it all.
Resistance to Civil Government
Ralph Waldo has a very drawn out way of explaining things. He just keeps on ranting in words that I have to look up on dictionary.com. Although the above is true, the main ideas of his essays are very profound and I do admire most of them to the fullest extent. Resistance to Civil Government is, for the most part, a logical way of thinking. It states, “That government is best which governs not at all, and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have”. I really like this saying because he’s saying that basically the government is of no use to the people, and when the people are mature enough and at peace, they will get tat kind of government. When no one feels like they have to control other people because, they too, are ready for a non-governing government, it will be.
He continues this train of though about the government by talking about how the government is really un-useful and unstable. I think that it is true with what he is saying, such as, “It is excellent, we must all allow; yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got of out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the west. It does not educate”. I really like this because I feel like this government that we are so involved in and that is involved in us has many parts that are ridiculous and not of any use. The government just keeps us stuck and does not move us forwards or backwards. It keeps us in someone else’s views in the way we should live our lives. My name is NOT George Bush. Due to that very beautiful fact (I hate him by the way), why should I live my life the way he wants to live his?
The point that I was explaining above also draws me to pull out one last quote from Waldo’s essay. “This American government-what it is but a tradition, though a recent one…” is the statement that stuck out to me a really hit a nerve somewhere in my body. Answer me that very question, please. What is our government but a tradition? What is Valentines Day but a tradition? It is a pointless tradition. Unlike Valentines Day, government in our civilization is a lot more of a big deal. I do go by what Waldo says by saying that we, the people, are not ready for this new non-governing government (which is really no government at all), but even if we were, I think that people would be too scared to let this go. I think that people wouldn’t even consider having no government because it would be so big and so huge. But please, tell me, what would you do without a government? I would live my life by my standards. Everybody would live THEIR lives under their own standards. That’ll be the day.
This essay is a little hard for me to connect to transcendentalism, but I will try. There was, or course, the main point that was blatantly displayed. Transcendentalists didn’t believe in “institutions such as government” etc., and obviously neither does Waldo. I think that there is also another transcendentalist belief that could be connected to this essay. Transcendentalists believed in following your intuition because it is God telling you what you should do. Following the government is basically following someone else’s intuition, so therefore, if you feel something but it is against the law and you decide to follow the law, you are obviously not following your heart. You are not following God. A quote that explains this theory of the transcendentalist’s beliefs is, “Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.” You kind of have to think outside the box, but he’s saying that if you feel one way about following the government (some one else’s intuition) but do not do anything, you will not get anything. Although, if you speak out and share your thoughts, you’re true and heart felt thoughts about the thing that governs you, then you are working towards what you want. Your are following your intuition and doing what’s right.
TASK 2
This man is definitely a transcendentalist. For one, while he was in nature, he said, “A man could lose himself up here. One wrong step, then you’ll be resting with god on the mountains”. Which implies that god is with him in the wilderness, just like the transcendentalist Ralph Waldo in his poem “Nature”. The main way that I really feel like this man is a transcendentalist is because he’s working really hard and doing the best that he can. He built this cabin out of straight logs, and he surviving out there in -50 degree weather. Like the transcendentalists, he used his mind and followed what he thought that he should do (and did it to the best of his ability. Because of that, you can definitely conclude that he believed that his mind was the most powerful thing. He didn’t need the minds of others or the technologies that we use today. All he needed was himself and his own hard work to survive.
In the video, it didn’t really say much about his faith in god, except for that short part about losing his step on the mountains. While I was reading, I did find something that he said about spiritual life. He said, “AS I CAME home through the woods with my string of fish, trailing my pole, it being now quite dark, I caught a glimpse of a woodchuck stealing across my path, and felt a strange thrill of savage delight, and was strongly tempted to seize and devour him raw; not that I was hungry then, except for that wildness which he represented. Once or twice, however, while I lived at the pond, I found myself ranging the woods, like a half-starved hound, with a strange abandonment, seeking some kind of venison which I might devour, and no morsel could have been too savage for me. The wildest scenes had become unaccountably familiar. I found in myself, and still find, an instinct toward a higher, or, as it is named, spiritual life, as do most men, and another toward a primitive rank and savage one, and I reverence them both. I love the wild not less than the good.” So although he talks about eating this animal raw, he also says that he longs and has respect for the spiritual side of him. He cherishes them both: the nature/wilderness side and also the devoted Christian.
Nature – Ralph Waldo
I really liked this piece of writing because I feel like it’s really reaching out to me in the way that nature does. The poem states, “In the presence of nature, a wild delight runs though the man, in spite of real sorrows”. This means a lot to me because I feel exactly what it’s talking about. When the sun is shining, after a rainy day or even if it’s just another sunny day, it brightens up my mood and makes me feel so good. It really is like a jolt of “wild delight” runs through my body the whole day. I think that’s why I liked the poem so much. It expresses nature the way that it should be. Not a place out in the middle of nowhere that we haven’t claimed yet, but as the beautiful unclaimed and serine land that it is. That right there is truly beautiful to me.
This poem gives off a special kind of vibe to me as well. It says that “In the wilderness I find something more dear and connate than in the streets of villages”. It’s just so true what the poet is saying here. You can’t find anything more pure, unclaimed, and truly beautiful than being out in the wilderness. It’s a totally different world than ANYWHERE else that you could be. In all, I loved this poem because I could truly relate to what they were saying about nature and how it affects people.
This poem is an exact example of a transcendentalist piece of work, which is the reason it was chosen for us to read for our transcendentalist project, obviously. The essay states, “The lover of nature is he whose inward and outward senses are still truly adjusted to each other; who has retained the spirit of infancy even into the era of manhood. His intercourse with heaven and Earth becomes part of his daily food. In the presence of nature, a wild delight runs through the man, in spite of real sorrows”. This quote is saying how a man of nature is a peace and connected by mind and soul and that this man of nature had held onto his pureness from his child or “infancy” stage. The transcendentalists believed that everyone was pure and didn’t believe in original sin. It’s saying that god is in nature, and that a man of nature makes it his life, day in and day out with god by his side in his creation. These words are those of a transcendentalist because they believe that god communicates to man through nature, so when this man in the poem is saying how a wild delight runs through him regardless of real sorrows, they’re saying that god is with him in his nature; through his sorrows.
Self-Reliance
This poem was a little hard for men to read at first, but after reading it aloud…twice…I got a better grip on what it was trying to say. From my point of view, the author was trying to let us understand that when we step into the world, society, we are almost ashamed of what we represent. We feel like it doesn’t really match with the world, and so (sometimes subconsciously) we don’t put forth our whole effort in what we do. The essay states, “We but half express our self, and are ashamed of that divine idea which each of us represents”. That says to me that the author wants to let us know that we are capable of being “divine” or that our thoughts about what we stand for are capable of being divine”.
I actually liked this essay and the things that Waldo was trying to say to his readers. A message that stuck out to me is, “There is a time in every man’s education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide”. This is really an important thing for us to learn, because you of course can admire or “envy” someone else’s work, but why not admire your own. When he says that imitation is suicide, I got out of it that you need not create someone else’s creation, but you should be original. All of this just goes back to what he was saying earlier about how when we step into society not matching everyone else in the world. The most beautiful thing is something that is your own created with your best and truest efforts. That right there is the all together summary of what the essay meant to me, which made it harsh in a way, but also an eye opener if you read it with an open mind.
Like the transcendentalists, the essay, Self Reliance, is about individuality and doing your best and most genuine job at everything that you do. It states, “A man is relieved and gay when he has put his heart into his work and done his best; but what he has said or done otherwise, shall give him no peace. It is a deliverance which does not deliver. In the attempt his genius deserts him; no muse befriends; no invention; no hope”. This statement really exemplifies what Waldo was trying to get across. The transcendentalists believed in doing things that are done with your full heart and are truly your best. They also believed that all that doesn’t matter if you have said or done something for one reason or another that contradicts what you’ve accomplished. So like the transcendentalist believed, so did Waldo. The statement above says it all.
Resistance to Civil Government
Ralph Waldo has a very drawn out way of explaining things. He just keeps on ranting in words that I have to look up on dictionary.com. Although the above is true, the main ideas of his essays are very profound and I do admire most of them to the fullest extent. Resistance to Civil Government is, for the most part, a logical way of thinking. It states, “That government is best which governs not at all, and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have”. I really like this saying because he’s saying that basically the government is of no use to the people, and when the people are mature enough and at peace, they will get tat kind of government. When no one feels like they have to control other people because, they too, are ready for a non-governing government, it will be.
He continues this train of though about the government by talking about how the government is really un-useful and unstable. I think that it is true with what he is saying, such as, “It is excellent, we must all allow; yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got of out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the west. It does not educate”. I really like this because I feel like this government that we are so involved in and that is involved in us has many parts that are ridiculous and not of any use. The government just keeps us stuck and does not move us forwards or backwards. It keeps us in someone else’s views in the way we should live our lives. My name is NOT George Bush. Due to that very beautiful fact (I hate him by the way), why should I live my life the way he wants to live his?
The point that I was explaining above also draws me to pull out one last quote from Waldo’s essay. “This American government-what it is but a tradition, though a recent one…” is the statement that stuck out to me a really hit a nerve somewhere in my body. Answer me that very question, please. What is our government but a tradition? What is Valentines Day but a tradition? It is a pointless tradition. Unlike Valentines Day, government in our civilization is a lot more of a big deal. I do go by what Waldo says by saying that we, the people, are not ready for this new non-governing government (which is really no government at all), but even if we were, I think that people would be too scared to let this go. I think that people wouldn’t even consider having no government because it would be so big and so huge. But please, tell me, what would you do without a government? I would live my life by my standards. Everybody would live THEIR lives under their own standards. That’ll be the day.
This essay is a little hard for me to connect to transcendentalism, but I will try. There was, or course, the main point that was blatantly displayed. Transcendentalists didn’t believe in “institutions such as government” etc., and obviously neither does Waldo. I think that there is also another transcendentalist belief that could be connected to this essay. Transcendentalists believed in following your intuition because it is God telling you what you should do. Following the government is basically following someone else’s intuition, so therefore, if you feel something but it is against the law and you decide to follow the law, you are obviously not following your heart. You are not following God. A quote that explains this theory of the transcendentalist’s beliefs is, “Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.” You kind of have to think outside the box, but he’s saying that if you feel one way about following the government (some one else’s intuition) but do not do anything, you will not get anything. Although, if you speak out and share your thoughts, you’re true and heart felt thoughts about the thing that governs you, then you are working towards what you want. Your are following your intuition and doing what’s right.
TASK 2
This man is definitely a transcendentalist. For one, while he was in nature, he said, “A man could lose himself up here. One wrong step, then you’ll be resting with god on the mountains”. Which implies that god is with him in the wilderness, just like the transcendentalist Ralph Waldo in his poem “Nature”. The main way that I really feel like this man is a transcendentalist is because he’s working really hard and doing the best that he can. He built this cabin out of straight logs, and he surviving out there in -50 degree weather. Like the transcendentalists, he used his mind and followed what he thought that he should do (and did it to the best of his ability. Because of that, you can definitely conclude that he believed that his mind was the most powerful thing. He didn’t need the minds of others or the technologies that we use today. All he needed was himself and his own hard work to survive.
In the video, it didn’t really say much about his faith in god, except for that short part about losing his step on the mountains. While I was reading, I did find something that he said about spiritual life. He said, “AS I CAME home through the woods with my string of fish, trailing my pole, it being now quite dark, I caught a glimpse of a woodchuck stealing across my path, and felt a strange thrill of savage delight, and was strongly tempted to seize and devour him raw; not that I was hungry then, except for that wildness which he represented. Once or twice, however, while I lived at the pond, I found myself ranging the woods, like a half-starved hound, with a strange abandonment, seeking some kind of venison which I might devour, and no morsel could have been too savage for me. The wildest scenes had become unaccountably familiar. I found in myself, and still find, an instinct toward a higher, or, as it is named, spiritual life, as do most men, and another toward a primitive rank and savage one, and I reverence them both. I love the wild not less than the good.” So although he talks about eating this animal raw, he also says that he longs and has respect for the spiritual side of him. He cherishes them both: the nature/wilderness side and also the devoted Christian.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Dark Romanticism
TASK 1
I definitely fall on the transcendentalist side out of that and the dark romantics. It’s ridiculous what the dark romantics believed in my opinion. God is great and forgiving and accepting and loving. Due to that fact right there, why would he create people born evil? Why would he create a world of his own in which he would place “evil”, or “un-pure” people? To tell you the truth, if you used that logic, would you then come to believe that god is bad? If he’s PURPOSEFULLY putting all of these people that do bad things to harm someone in one way or another, wouldn’t believe that the creator is bad? It contradicts itself frontwards and backwards, but hey, who asked me? Although this is true, after doing this project, I’ve realized that the dark romantics were a whole lot more realistic with their beliefs. There is NO ONE in the world who is totally good and pure
TASK 2
I read it .
TASK 3
So this is an example of dark romanticism because they believed that the transcendentalists were crazy for thinking that everyone was pure and good. This story is kind of mocking or making fun of transcendentalists because transcendentalists, in a dark romantic’s mind, are trying to ignore the fact that there is evil. By having this prince lock everyone in his castle and party because of this disease or whatever, they are saying that the prince and his people are just going to try and ignore the disease and run away and have a party.
The real mockery in this is that by the prince and his people locking themselves in his castle, they also locked in the evil. This is the part of the transcendentalists that the romantics didn’t like the most. They are just saying that you’re trying to ignore it, but that the evil was catch up with you later. In the story, it says, “But now there were 12 strokes to be sounded by the bell of the clock; and thus it happened, perhaps that more of though crept, with more time, into the meditations of the thoughtful among those who reveled”, and then after a few non needed sentences, it states, “there were many individuals in the crowd who had found leisure to become aware of the presence of a masked figure which had arrested the attention of no single individual before”. THEN, after a lot more nonsense, it says, “his vesture, clothes, were dabbed in blood”. So anyways after all of this, the transcendentalists were totally oblivious to the fact that this thing in blood was walking around for HOURS. It wasn’t even until 12 that they realized that he was there. They didn’t think that the evil or disease would find them there.
This piece, to me, was a little bit long in the beginning with all of the details and explaining that I assume Poe felt necessary. Regardless of that factor, he definitely got his point across.
I definitely fall on the transcendentalist side out of that and the dark romantics. It’s ridiculous what the dark romantics believed in my opinion. God is great and forgiving and accepting and loving. Due to that fact right there, why would he create people born evil? Why would he create a world of his own in which he would place “evil”, or “un-pure” people? To tell you the truth, if you used that logic, would you then come to believe that god is bad? If he’s PURPOSEFULLY putting all of these people that do bad things to harm someone in one way or another, wouldn’t believe that the creator is bad? It contradicts itself frontwards and backwards, but hey, who asked me? Although this is true, after doing this project, I’ve realized that the dark romantics were a whole lot more realistic with their beliefs. There is NO ONE in the world who is totally good and pure
TASK 2
I read it .
TASK 3
So this is an example of dark romanticism because they believed that the transcendentalists were crazy for thinking that everyone was pure and good. This story is kind of mocking or making fun of transcendentalists because transcendentalists, in a dark romantic’s mind, are trying to ignore the fact that there is evil. By having this prince lock everyone in his castle and party because of this disease or whatever, they are saying that the prince and his people are just going to try and ignore the disease and run away and have a party.
The real mockery in this is that by the prince and his people locking themselves in his castle, they also locked in the evil. This is the part of the transcendentalists that the romantics didn’t like the most. They are just saying that you’re trying to ignore it, but that the evil was catch up with you later. In the story, it says, “But now there were 12 strokes to be sounded by the bell of the clock; and thus it happened, perhaps that more of though crept, with more time, into the meditations of the thoughtful among those who reveled”, and then after a few non needed sentences, it states, “there were many individuals in the crowd who had found leisure to become aware of the presence of a masked figure which had arrested the attention of no single individual before”. THEN, after a lot more nonsense, it says, “his vesture, clothes, were dabbed in blood”. So anyways after all of this, the transcendentalists were totally oblivious to the fact that this thing in blood was walking around for HOURS. It wasn’t even until 12 that they realized that he was there. They didn’t think that the evil or disease would find them there.
This piece, to me, was a little bit long in the beginning with all of the details and explaining that I assume Poe felt necessary. Regardless of that factor, he definitely got his point across.
TASK 5
So this poem was actually a bit depressing to me in the way of hopelessness and depression. Poe is using a raven to symbolize his depression, the sadness, the death, the solemn attitude he feels, or whatever. He’s talking to this “raven” and is asking him all of these questions with responses that have the continuity as the way he’s feeling inside at the moment (go figure!). He keeps on getting the “nevermore” answer to the raven’s name, which to me means that this is a non detailed, non complicated thing. It’s like the raven is there, nameless, ageless, colorless, and he’s just there as blatantly as his depression. Finally through all of the other questions that Poe asks this so called raven, the last one is the most meaningful. “And the Raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sittingOn the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreamingAnd the lamp-light o'er him streaming throws his shadows on the floor;And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floorShall be lifted--nevermore!” He’s saying that this depression, this raven, is making this big shadow that he’s going to live in for the rest of his life, which will go away “nevermore”.
When he says, “But the Raven still beguiling all my sad soul into smiling, straight I wheeled a cushioned seat in front of bird and bust and door; then, upon the velvet sinking, I betook myself to linking fancy unto fancy, thinking what this ominous bird of yore-- what this grim, ungainly, ghastly, gaunt, and ominous bird of yore meant in croaking "Nevermore”, he’s sounding more insecure that mad, which goes to show that his fury and frustration with the “raven” is overpowered by his weak and sad heart. He’s asking all of these questions, but he already knows the answer somewhere in the back of his head. When he says in that last line “meant in croaking nevermore”, he’s already got an idea, but he keeps on asking questions because he’s scared. He doesn’t want this thing to be looking over him and always in his mind for the rest of his life.
This is poem is definitely anti-transcendentalist because of the specific things having to do with your intuition that it’s talking about. He’s saying that you’re not going to be happy all the time because god is NOT the person in control of your intuition and how you feel. He’s saying that you are going to feel this sadness and depression in your heart and soul regardless of god, and that it’s natural to feel like this. Going and being out with nature is not a cure for this kind of depression and hurt. The transcendentalists believed that all people were 100% good and genuine, but the dark romantics, like Poe, knew better. They knew better because they felt this not good and, in a way, evil feeling. That is what is expressed in the poem.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
American Romanticism
Task 2
“Whenever he went dodging about the village, he was surrounded
by a troop of them, hanging on his skirts, clambering on his back, and
playing a thousand tricks on him with impunity; and not a dog would bark
at him throughout the neighborhood.”
This excerpt from the story of Rip Van Winkle shows Romanticism by exaggerating the truth in my opinion. Instead of saying that that he was like by all, or that he was a popular man among the community, they portrait an image of children hanging off of his clothes and following him around everywhere he went. They also say a “troop of them”, which implies a great number of children instead of 5 or 6. Also, to get the point out to the full extent, they talk about the dogs not even barking at him, trying to say that even every single one of the dogs in the town like him. So overall, this sentence is ideal Romanticism because it portraits how people like Rip a lot more than they probably did.
“Their visages, too, were peculiar; one had a large head,
broad face, and small piggish eyes; the face of another seemed to consist
entirely of nose, and was surmounted by a white sugar-loaf hat, set off
with a little red cock’s tail. They all had beards, of various shapes and
colors. There was one who seemed to be the commander. He was a stout
old gentleman, with a weather-beaten countenance; he wore a laced
doublet, broad belt and hanger, high-crowned hat and feather, red
stockings, and high-heeled shoes, with roses in them. The whole group
reminded Rip of the figures in an old Flemish painting, in the parlor of
Dominie Van Schaick, the village parson, and which had been brought
over from Holland at the time of the settlement.”
This excerpt for the story shows a great deal of Romanticism. This bit of the story is going against every way you would try to explain what’s going on. He’s in the middle of the woods and sees these seeming to be elf creatures that look like something out of a painting he had once seen. How would you be able to find logic in that? How would you be able to explain why they are what they are and why they are there in the woods drinking liquor and playing a game called nine pins? Overall, this is just defies everything that the rationalists believed in, because you can’t logically explain what’s going on and why it’s going on.
by a troop of them, hanging on his skirts, clambering on his back, and
playing a thousand tricks on him with impunity; and not a dog would bark
at him throughout the neighborhood.”
This excerpt from the story of Rip Van Winkle shows Romanticism by exaggerating the truth in my opinion. Instead of saying that that he was like by all, or that he was a popular man among the community, they portrait an image of children hanging off of his clothes and following him around everywhere he went. They also say a “troop of them”, which implies a great number of children instead of 5 or 6. Also, to get the point out to the full extent, they talk about the dogs not even barking at him, trying to say that even every single one of the dogs in the town like him. So overall, this sentence is ideal Romanticism because it portraits how people like Rip a lot more than they probably did.
“Their visages, too, were peculiar; one had a large head,
broad face, and small piggish eyes; the face of another seemed to consist
entirely of nose, and was surmounted by a white sugar-loaf hat, set off
with a little red cock’s tail. They all had beards, of various shapes and
colors. There was one who seemed to be the commander. He was a stout
old gentleman, with a weather-beaten countenance; he wore a laced
doublet, broad belt and hanger, high-crowned hat and feather, red
stockings, and high-heeled shoes, with roses in them. The whole group
reminded Rip of the figures in an old Flemish painting, in the parlor of
Dominie Van Schaick, the village parson, and which had been brought
over from Holland at the time of the settlement.”
This excerpt for the story shows a great deal of Romanticism. This bit of the story is going against every way you would try to explain what’s going on. He’s in the middle of the woods and sees these seeming to be elf creatures that look like something out of a painting he had once seen. How would you be able to find logic in that? How would you be able to explain why they are what they are and why they are there in the woods drinking liquor and playing a game called nine pins? Overall, this is just defies everything that the rationalists believed in, because you can’t logically explain what’s going on and why it’s going on.
Task 3
Thanatopsis is a poem about death. This poem portraits death not as we see it. It’s saying that we are going to be one with the earth, and that it’s really not as bad as we think it is. It wants us to feel as though it is a normal thing that happens to all of us and that it’s really natural. For some reason we don’t see death as the above when that’s really what it is. Thanatopsis actually is not at all religious in the least bit, and it’s actually not very happy or cheerful. They talk about death as a casual thing, and refer to nature as being a numbing device for the depression that death brings. The poem definitely not saying that death is a happy thing and that it’s not bad, but it really emphasizes that, in nature, you can find refuge for a content state, instead of the catastrophic and sad state of mind that we drag ourselves into while dealing with death.
The Romantic aspect of this poem is that Bryant is making death seem like a lighter and less devastating than it really is to most people. Romantics give an opinion and a vision of better than reality, so when he’s saying that “all they that breath shall share their destiny”, he saying that the same exact thing is going to happen to everyone in the world. By saying something this bold, it’s definitely a shock to the family of those who died because it’s not the norm and it’s kind of careless in their eyes.
The Romantic aspect of this poem is that Bryant is making death seem like a lighter and less devastating than it really is to most people. Romantics give an opinion and a vision of better than reality, so when he’s saying that “all they that breath shall share their destiny”, he saying that the same exact thing is going to happen to everyone in the world. By saying something this bold, it’s definitely a shock to the family of those who died because it’s not the norm and it’s kind of careless in their eyes.
Task 4
- To tell you the truth, I’m not exactly sure of the poem. One point that I thought up is that he is a positive man. Maybe he’s trying to point out all of the positive things that could come out of this “dreary, dreamy sound”. By showing the positive things, maybe he was hoping that us, the people who read it, would look at situations in our own lives that are not exactly perfect, or “good”. Also, not only may he have been trying to do the above, but also while we maintain a positive attitude towards the “bad” things in our life, we should keep our thoughts creative and imaginative.
- Some images that stand out to me are the following:
- “Squares of sunshine on the floor light the long and dusky lane”.
- “With it mounts her own fair face, as at some magician’s spell.
- “Then within a prison-yard, faces fixed, and stern, and hard. Laughter and indecent mirth; Ah! It is the gallows-tree! Breath of Christian charity, blow, and sweep it from the earth!
- The ropewalk is a good example of Romanticism, due to, in my opinion, one main factor. The fact that Longfellow was looking at this spinning factory covered in dust and that was very badly lit, and was somehow picturing all of these images is basically your answer. He’s looking at the thread but seeing a woman by a well, and describing her with such unusual detail and creativeness, that he is for sure a romantic. He’s looking at the thread but seeing an old man ringing a bell at the “noon hour”, and watching get lifted off the ground. By the way he is looking at such a dull and kind of depressing factory and turning into the above, definitely defines him as a romantic.
- Some images that stand out to me are the following:
- “Squares of sunshine on the floor light the long and dusky lane”.
- “With it mounts her own fair face, as at some magician’s spell.
- “Then within a prison-yard, faces fixed, and stern, and hard. Laughter and indecent mirth; Ah! It is the gallows-tree! Breath of Christian charity, blow, and sweep it from the earth!
- The ropewalk is a good example of Romanticism, due to, in my opinion, one main factor. The fact that Longfellow was looking at this spinning factory covered in dust and that was very badly lit, and was somehow picturing all of these images is basically your answer. He’s looking at the thread but seeing a woman by a well, and describing her with such unusual detail and creativeness, that he is for sure a romantic. He’s looking at the thread but seeing an old man ringing a bell at the “noon hour”, and watching get lifted off the ground. By the way he is looking at such a dull and kind of depressing factory and turning into the above, definitely defines him as a romantic.
Task 5
In the picture, the sky looks like it’s literally on fire. It looks like the fire has kind of turned to smoke in some parts. The title is Twilight in the Wilderness, and this picture, in my opinion, is trying to make us think of this time of day in the wilderness as more beautiful and more intense than if were to be some where else. You can still see the blue of the sky through the red fire in the sky, which isn’t something that you can logically explain. Also, the sky by the mountains where there are no clouds looks like the sun has already set. You can’t really make too much sense of that because the blue sky above wouldn’t be blue if the sun had already set in what we think of as the horizon. Also, when I look at the clouds, I think of the artists trying to portrait the sun as burning off, or setting. Because the sun is burning out, it causes these massive fire clouds in the sky that also fill with smoke. That’s just my thoughts about it though. Also, even though it may not make very much sense, it’s also Romantic in that way, because you can’t explain logically why the sun’s burning out causes fire clouds, but it just is.
This picture is by a Romantic painter by the name of Francisco Goya. It resembles because it makes you use your imagination to look at the bigger picture the painter is trying to help us see. It’s not a logical thing for a man to be eating a child, but it’s how Goya imagined a symbol for the “violence, terror, and horror” for the world. If you look at this picture with a closed mind, you may just scroll down really fast, but with an open mind and imagination, you can see even more than what Goya was trying to portrait. You can see the wrongs of man that aren’t deeply thinking about what they’re doing. Look at the man’s eyes. It doesn’t look like he likes what he’s doing, and he doesn’t have a possessed look. He looks like he’s scared or worried. Maybe Goya was trying to say that man is doing all of these things no knowing the true consequences of our actions, but just ignoring our gut feeling and doing wrong overall. Overall, this is a perfect display of Romanticism because you have to use your imagination to get the bigger picture and also because it’s not logical for this man to be eating a child, but it’s not like you can just ask him his thought process for doing so. You have to usar su cabeza.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
rationalists
TASK 1
Puritans and the Rationalists differed in many very distinct ways. The Puritans believed in God not only creating the universe, but also controlling everything that happened here, on Earth. They believed that if one were to try to find meaning to certain aspects of the Earth, such as gravity, it demeans, or minimizes God’s power and ability. On the contrary, the Rationalists believed in ideas that were worlds different from the Puritans thoughts. The Rationalists basically believed that everything in the world had a purpose for being there, and that they had the right to find out that reason. They believed that, yes, there was in fact a God, but that he didn’t control things happening on Earth, and that it was up to us people to find out how things worked. Building on that idea, the Rationalists began to realize that with each new discovery, there were more questions, which led them to conclude that there was more and more to be figured out in the world that we are living in.
In modern times, there are thoughts that resemble both of these groups. A so called “Puritan” thought, would be like some modern day church goers. Like the Puritans begged for God to hand them an answer to a problem in the world on a silver platter, some church goers pray for things that they could achieve themselves. Some people pray for a spouse, or for a new job, when all the while they could have been getting out there and looking for a new job, or going around and trying to find someone to be in a relationship with.
Have you seen those bumper stickers that say something about being “anti bio terror”? A so called “Rationalist” thought in modern day would be like the bio terrorism labs. Some people believe that the only way to learn about certain diseases, etc is by facing them, almost literally, face to face. Like the rationalists faced oppression and people not liking their way of discovering things, these bio terrorists also face those same problems.
TASK 3
Benjamin Franklin was a good example of a Rationalist because of many reasons. On of them, being how he made a list of things that he wanted to improve on. What he did was make a list of them, and for the first week, he would pick one of the virtues, and work only on that one virtue all week. It states in the text that , "I made a little book, in which I allotted a page for each of the virtues. I ruled each page with red ink, so as to have seven columns, one for each day of the week, making each column with a letter of one of the virtue, on which line, and in its proper column, I might mark, by a little black spot, every fault I found upon examination to have been committed respecting that virtue upon that day." This sounds a bit crazy, and weird, but by doing this, he was finding a rational way to correct his faults. he wasn't blaming god for his imperfections, like the puritans would have done. Instead, like I said before, he acknowledged them and found a solution.
TASK 4
1.Always be honest
2.Don’t break a promise to god
3.Respect yourself
4.Live your life
5.Don't have any regrets
6.You can’t change the past, so don't try. Learn from it and focus on the present and the future.
7.You’re only young once, so live it up right
8.One is not born a woman, one becomes one, so don't think that you are automatically a women. Remember that there are certain aspects of being one that you should try to acquire.
9.There’s a little fire in every girl, so don’t let it go out while you’re still young
10.Recognize when you’re wrong and accept it
11.Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional, so remember that phrase through the hard times and persevere through the thick of things.
12.Never lose sight of what you want.
13.Everyone makes mistakes, so don't put yourself down thinking that you're the only one.
Now, I'm to answer a certain question that I'm not really sure how to answer. Do I believe that this list of virtues could help me achieve moral perfection? No, I don't think that there is such a thing as moral perfection. I think that you may be able to get kind of close, but there is NO such thing as perfection in general in my book. Also, even if it were possible to reach such a thing as moral perfection, I'm not sure that I could "perfectly" master all of the virtues above. The things that I chose that I believe I should improve on are of a wide variety, and I believe that it could take a life to master them. No one can be perfect, and hardly anyone can be close to it. Although that statement is true, by genuinely trying, we could get pretty close.(:
Puritans and the Rationalists differed in many very distinct ways. The Puritans believed in God not only creating the universe, but also controlling everything that happened here, on Earth. They believed that if one were to try to find meaning to certain aspects of the Earth, such as gravity, it demeans, or minimizes God’s power and ability. On the contrary, the Rationalists believed in ideas that were worlds different from the Puritans thoughts. The Rationalists basically believed that everything in the world had a purpose for being there, and that they had the right to find out that reason. They believed that, yes, there was in fact a God, but that he didn’t control things happening on Earth, and that it was up to us people to find out how things worked. Building on that idea, the Rationalists began to realize that with each new discovery, there were more questions, which led them to conclude that there was more and more to be figured out in the world that we are living in.
In modern times, there are thoughts that resemble both of these groups. A so called “Puritan” thought, would be like some modern day church goers. Like the Puritans begged for God to hand them an answer to a problem in the world on a silver platter, some church goers pray for things that they could achieve themselves. Some people pray for a spouse, or for a new job, when all the while they could have been getting out there and looking for a new job, or going around and trying to find someone to be in a relationship with.
Have you seen those bumper stickers that say something about being “anti bio terror”? A so called “Rationalist” thought in modern day would be like the bio terrorism labs. Some people believe that the only way to learn about certain diseases, etc is by facing them, almost literally, face to face. Like the rationalists faced oppression and people not liking their way of discovering things, these bio terrorists also face those same problems.
TASK 3
Benjamin Franklin was a good example of a Rationalist because of many reasons. On of them, being how he made a list of things that he wanted to improve on. What he did was make a list of them, and for the first week, he would pick one of the virtues, and work only on that one virtue all week. It states in the text that , "I made a little book, in which I allotted a page for each of the virtues. I ruled each page with red ink, so as to have seven columns, one for each day of the week, making each column with a letter of one of the virtue, on which line, and in its proper column, I might mark, by a little black spot, every fault I found upon examination to have been committed respecting that virtue upon that day." This sounds a bit crazy, and weird, but by doing this, he was finding a rational way to correct his faults. he wasn't blaming god for his imperfections, like the puritans would have done. Instead, like I said before, he acknowledged them and found a solution.
TASK 4
1.Always be honest
2.Don’t break a promise to god
3.Respect yourself
4.Live your life
5.Don't have any regrets
6.You can’t change the past, so don't try. Learn from it and focus on the present and the future.
7.You’re only young once, so live it up right
8.One is not born a woman, one becomes one, so don't think that you are automatically a women. Remember that there are certain aspects of being one that you should try to acquire.
9.There’s a little fire in every girl, so don’t let it go out while you’re still young
10.Recognize when you’re wrong and accept it
11.Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional, so remember that phrase through the hard times and persevere through the thick of things.
12.Never lose sight of what you want.
13.Everyone makes mistakes, so don't put yourself down thinking that you're the only one.
Now, I'm to answer a certain question that I'm not really sure how to answer. Do I believe that this list of virtues could help me achieve moral perfection? No, I don't think that there is such a thing as moral perfection. I think that you may be able to get kind of close, but there is NO such thing as perfection in general in my book. Also, even if it were possible to reach such a thing as moral perfection, I'm not sure that I could "perfectly" master all of the virtues above. The things that I chose that I believe I should improve on are of a wide variety, and I believe that it could take a life to master them. No one can be perfect, and hardly anyone can be close to it. Although that statement is true, by genuinely trying, we could get pretty close.(:
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Puritans
TASK 1
The Puritan's beliefs, in my opinion, were insane! They believed that, due to Adam and Eve (the first human beings), all humans were born as sinners. Along with the fact that all of us are apparently sinners, were are also all going to hell, regardless of the fact that some people may live good, pure lives. They believed that only a select few people, themselves, were going to heaven, because god had "chosen" them. Their priests went to Harvard to get their priesthood degree, and after they completed the course, they though that the new priests could interpret the word of god. There was a priest by the name of Johnathan Edwards, which is definitely something that they believed in. To sum it up, they believed in their beliefs, which was very unfortunate for the people of their time.
TASK 2
The things that I have read, and heard, about the Puritans in “Plymouth Plantation” and in the “Sinners in the Hands of God”, make them seem ridiculous. I mean, I guess because their whole community was the same through out, it just seemed normal, but the way that they thought and also the state of mind that they were in has left me in an incredulous state of mind. In the next few paragraphs, you will not be reading any good feedback on the Puritans, because I don’t like them, what they did, or how they though at all.
One of the readings state that when they got off the mayflower and were “ready to perish in this wilderness”, they prayed to god. They say that god heard their prayers and saw their hardships, which caused him to redeem them of all their sins, and made them pure basically. I believe that it is so ridiculous. So many people had hardships back then, so why was it any different for the other people who had it hard? Why were the puritans the only ones who were redeemed of their born sins and made pure?
I was reading about when the Indians finally warmed up to the Puritan’s presence in their land and from how they acted and what they did, and I think that they are the reason we have controlling people in our government today. If the first government in the new land acted this way, that it just rubbed off on other people and it just kept on going throughout the government officials, even up to this day. So the Indians and the Puritans traded gifts etc, and the Puritans actually have the audacity to write about 10 or so rules down for the Indians to follow! Yes, we had a crazy president who wanted to control Iraq and how people acted on the other side of the world, but this was at the beginning! When the Puritans had just arrived on the Indian’s Native land, they were already trying to control how they acted!
Once the Puritans got settled in and got themselves established, they found a so-called “injustice” their community. Apparently they said that men that were old would wash the clothes, etc. of the strong men. They said that the “he that was weak got no more divisions of victuals than a strong man” and even though the weak did not do a ¼ of the work the strong man did. That basically says that because an older man or weaker man couldn’t do as much work as a “strong man” and the old and weak men were still getting the same amount of clothes, food, etc, that it was wrong, and injustice. If you think about it, that’s kind of how it is today, in a sense. Say you were at school and the other boys wouldn’t let you play with them because you were short, even though you were really good. Or say you got less playing time because you were short. It’s something that you really can’t help, which is an injustice in itself.
TASK 3
statement one
There is nothing between you and hell but the air. There is only the power and mere pleasure of God that holds you up.
They are saying that hell is waiting for you and that the only thing keeping you from hell is God. Although this is true, this is a priest saying this, so therefore he saying this to the people, but not to himself. This is kind of irrelevant to the whole “unconditional election” topic, but the preacher says, “and the mere pleasure of God”, which implies that he is not only just keeping you from going to hell, but that he is also amused by this. It means that since you’re going to hell anyways, he enjoys watching you, scared and unknowing, waiting for him to remove his hands, let his “wrath” come upon you, and drop into hell and burn.
statement two
It is true that judgment against your evil works has not been executed hither to. The floods of god’s vengeance have been withheld.
The priest is saying this to the people, knowing very well that he is an exception to these words. “Your evil works”, he says, not our “evil works”. He therefore believes that they are the ones that have been withheld from the floods of God’s vengeance, for the moment at least (until they are dropped into hell).
The Puritan's beliefs, in my opinion, were insane! They believed that, due to Adam and Eve (the first human beings), all humans were born as sinners. Along with the fact that all of us are apparently sinners, were are also all going to hell, regardless of the fact that some people may live good, pure lives. They believed that only a select few people, themselves, were going to heaven, because god had "chosen" them. Their priests went to Harvard to get their priesthood degree, and after they completed the course, they though that the new priests could interpret the word of god. There was a priest by the name of Johnathan Edwards, which is definitely something that they believed in. To sum it up, they believed in their beliefs, which was very unfortunate for the people of their time.
TASK 2
The things that I have read, and heard, about the Puritans in “Plymouth Plantation” and in the “Sinners in the Hands of God”, make them seem ridiculous. I mean, I guess because their whole community was the same through out, it just seemed normal, but the way that they thought and also the state of mind that they were in has left me in an incredulous state of mind. In the next few paragraphs, you will not be reading any good feedback on the Puritans, because I don’t like them, what they did, or how they though at all.
One of the readings state that when they got off the mayflower and were “ready to perish in this wilderness”, they prayed to god. They say that god heard their prayers and saw their hardships, which caused him to redeem them of all their sins, and made them pure basically. I believe that it is so ridiculous. So many people had hardships back then, so why was it any different for the other people who had it hard? Why were the puritans the only ones who were redeemed of their born sins and made pure?
I was reading about when the Indians finally warmed up to the Puritan’s presence in their land and from how they acted and what they did, and I think that they are the reason we have controlling people in our government today. If the first government in the new land acted this way, that it just rubbed off on other people and it just kept on going throughout the government officials, even up to this day. So the Indians and the Puritans traded gifts etc, and the Puritans actually have the audacity to write about 10 or so rules down for the Indians to follow! Yes, we had a crazy president who wanted to control Iraq and how people acted on the other side of the world, but this was at the beginning! When the Puritans had just arrived on the Indian’s Native land, they were already trying to control how they acted!
Once the Puritans got settled in and got themselves established, they found a so-called “injustice” their community. Apparently they said that men that were old would wash the clothes, etc. of the strong men. They said that the “he that was weak got no more divisions of victuals than a strong man” and even though the weak did not do a ¼ of the work the strong man did. That basically says that because an older man or weaker man couldn’t do as much work as a “strong man” and the old and weak men were still getting the same amount of clothes, food, etc, that it was wrong, and injustice. If you think about it, that’s kind of how it is today, in a sense. Say you were at school and the other boys wouldn’t let you play with them because you were short, even though you were really good. Or say you got less playing time because you were short. It’s something that you really can’t help, which is an injustice in itself.
TASK 3
statement one
There is nothing between you and hell but the air. There is only the power and mere pleasure of God that holds you up.
They are saying that hell is waiting for you and that the only thing keeping you from hell is God. Although this is true, this is a priest saying this, so therefore he saying this to the people, but not to himself. This is kind of irrelevant to the whole “unconditional election” topic, but the preacher says, “and the mere pleasure of God”, which implies that he is not only just keeping you from going to hell, but that he is also amused by this. It means that since you’re going to hell anyways, he enjoys watching you, scared and unknowing, waiting for him to remove his hands, let his “wrath” come upon you, and drop into hell and burn.
statement two
It is true that judgment against your evil works has not been executed hither to. The floods of god’s vengeance have been withheld.
The priest is saying this to the people, knowing very well that he is an exception to these words. “Your evil works”, he says, not our “evil works”. He therefore believes that they are the ones that have been withheld from the floods of God’s vengeance, for the moment at least (until they are dropped into hell).
Monday, February 23, 2009
reading log - week 1
mmmkay. So I'm reading a book called "Angels and Demons" by Dan Brown. This is the prequel to The Divinci Code, which I'm sure is very commonly known. This book starts off telling about the life of a professor, Langdon, at Harvard University, who specials in come kind of special cult class. He knows a lot about the old satanic cult, the Illuminati, so when the director at CERN (some really advanced scientific research place) calls him up in the really early morning insisting that he come, he's shocked. When he gets there the director shows him the body of a man with his head turned completely around, a slit across his neck, and the Illuminati anti gram burnt into his flesh. This cult had been inactive, or so everyone thought, for centuries now, so it was hard for Langdon to believe that they had stricken back finally.
*background on the Illuminati* They were people such as Galileo and other scientists who were, back in that time, not allowed to publish newly found scientific wonders. They first formed the group so that they could study and share research in peace. They were actually killed by priests and placed in different parts of the Vatican city to scare other scientist away from joining*
Langdon didn't believe them until he found out that the scientist with the brand and his daughter were trying to find a way to create matter out of nothing while there was a greater energy source there, which would tie in how god and the big bang theory were inter twined and both were correct. They succeeded and created anti-matter out of nothing. now they realize that the anti-matter was stolen, and that it was placed some where inside the Vatican city on the same night as the conclave (due to the fact that the pope passed on). on top of all of that, 4 or the "cardinals" were kidnapped and were to be killed at 4 different churches. so now Langdon and the daughter of the scientist are looking for a parchment written by Galileo to show the way to the 4 Illuminati secret meeting places before the time on the anti-matter runs out and all of the "cardinals", art, sculptures, etc are blown up.
*background on the Illuminati* They were people such as Galileo and other scientists who were, back in that time, not allowed to publish newly found scientific wonders. They first formed the group so that they could study and share research in peace. They were actually killed by priests and placed in different parts of the Vatican city to scare other scientist away from joining*
Langdon didn't believe them until he found out that the scientist with the brand and his daughter were trying to find a way to create matter out of nothing while there was a greater energy source there, which would tie in how god and the big bang theory were inter twined and both were correct. They succeeded and created anti-matter out of nothing. now they realize that the anti-matter was stolen, and that it was placed some where inside the Vatican city on the same night as the conclave (due to the fact that the pope passed on). on top of all of that, 4 or the "cardinals" were kidnapped and were to be killed at 4 different churches. so now Langdon and the daughter of the scientist are looking for a parchment written by Galileo to show the way to the 4 Illuminati secret meeting places before the time on the anti-matter runs out and all of the "cardinals", art, sculptures, etc are blown up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
