Monday, November 7, 2011
Honor
The word honor has always carried a certain weight and significance to me. What makes it intriguing is the wide range of implications and angles which the word has sustained throughout history. From medieval time periods and Anglo-Saxon writings, we have a meaning related heavily to war, valor, and dying for one's country. Today, in a world of more modern warfare and mindset--knights and kingship being obsolete in the United States--we may have lost some substance of the word. While it may still connect to bringing honor to your family in some culture, most people have lost the yearning of dying for one's country purely out of a desire to gain honor in his or her name. I am curious to learn the origins of this word, whether it is masculine or feminine, how it came to be prominent in the English language, and how the word itself came to convey such weight in earlier times.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Legacy of Frankenstein by Paul Northam
- Focus on the presence of a science that involves an invasive manipulation on our own humanity, our own identity
- Reading a story such as Frankenstein (which has been followed by numerous other fictions like it), we find a new fear of scientists, whom we have no control over, invading our privacy and transforming our bodies in ways that are unfavorable to us, one example being Jurassic Park
- Such actions have been considered forbidden areas, and as offensive to nature
- There is a looming ambivalence - we are afraid of what those mad scientists may be doing behind our backs, but at the same time, an elimination of all science would be counter-productive and diminishing of the "vast potential of genetic research" as Northam puts it
- It is clear that until the unveil of some true miracle such as a cure for cancer or for genetic mutation, this ambivalence will endure
- It's clear that Frankenstein has shaped our perspective and impression of scientists, but why is this?
- The cause is human nature
- Due to the moral standards embedded within us we find Victor rather than his creation to be the villain, as it seems as though he creates the monster for nothing more than self-glorification
- Furthermore, after carefully nurturing it to life, he completely disown it, leaving the creature helpless and without a companion, something Victor also takes away
- This, according to Northam, is one element that captures us, and perhaps leaves us to assume the same for all scientists alike
- We read how Frankenstein created something that he could not control, which later returns to kill all those close to Victor, and we assume that modern scientists, along with biological researchers may bome upon another "pandora's box" of sort, having power and destruction which no human can predict
- Reading a story such as Frankenstein (which has been followed by numerous other fictions like it), we find a new fear of scientists, whom we have no control over, invading our privacy and transforming our bodies in ways that are unfavorable to us, one example being Jurassic Park
- Such actions have been considered forbidden areas, and as offensive to nature
- There is a looming ambivalence - we are afraid of what those mad scientists may be doing behind our backs, but at the same time, an elimination of all science would be counter-productive and diminishing of the "vast potential of genetic research" as Northam puts it
- It is clear that until the unveil of some true miracle such as a cure for cancer or for genetic mutation, this ambivalence will endure
- It's clear that Frankenstein has shaped our perspective and impression of scientists, but why is this?
- The cause is human nature
- Due to the moral standards embedded within us we find Victor rather than his creation to be the villain, as it seems as though he creates the monster for nothing more than self-glorification
- Furthermore, after carefully nurturing it to life, he completely disown it, leaving the creature helpless and without a companion, something Victor also takes away
- This, according to Northam, is one element that captures us, and perhaps leaves us to assume the same for all scientists alike
- We read how Frankenstein created something that he could not control, which later returns to kill all those close to Victor, and we assume that modern scientists, along with biological researchers may bome upon another "pandora's box" of sort, having power and destruction which no human can predict
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Beowulf and Alexander: the Two Greats
Beowul, one of the most reputable and well-known works dating from the Anglo-Saxon period, is the story of an archetypal hero who thinks not of himself and aspires for legacy. Although it was written over ten centuries ago, it can still be related to many things, preceding and following its writing, that we study in history today. One such figure is another very well-known King by the name of Alexander the Great. Through examining both the epic of Beowulf and the life history of Alexander, there are numerous similarities and intersections between their desires, motives, characters, and faults. This comparison is most evident in their reputations.
The story of Beowulf makes it clear from the beginning that any warrior who wants his name to be threaded in history, who wants to leave a legacy, must establish his reputation. The idea of reputation was one generally accepted by all, as conveyed in the first 200 lines by a coast-guard speaking to Beowulf, "Anyone with gumption and a sharp mind will take the measure of two things: what's said and what's done" (287-289, Beowulf). This quote gives some context to the significance matched with reputation, as it is not handed out freely, but rather must be truly earned. As exemplified in the famous quote by Alexander the Great, "How great are the dangers I face to win a good name in Athens," it is clear by this and by the entirety and severity of his life ambition that reputation and legacy was of utmost importance to Alexander. Both men being warriors of their people, Beowulf and Alexander the Great are very similar when it comes to ambition, reputation, and simply having a nature to strive for honor.
Reputation, however, must also be rooted by some tangible accomplishment, some trophy or token of victory obtained through valor, and both men indeed have the service record to show for it. A man so sought-after as the valiant Beowulf has no hesitation in flaunting himself, and once inquired the the lord of Danes to prove his heroism, he responds with, "every elder and experienced councilman among my people supported my resolve to come here to you, [...] because all know of my awesome strength. They had seen me boltered in the blood of enemies when I battled and bound five beasts, raided a troll-nest and in the night-sea slaughtered sea-brutes. I have suffered extremes and avenged the Geats" (415-423). All was completed under the honorable oath of a warrior, and has given Beowulf the experience needed to fend off Grendel, the most nasty of all creatures. Rather than conquering beasts, Alexander conquered kingdoms, roughly seven major ones, all for the expansion of his people and of the Hellenistic civilization. For around twelve years, Alexander was an unstoppable force, and anyone in the way of his plan for expansion was forced to either befriend the enemy or be trampled where they stood. For the better part of his life, Alexander held the reputation close to that of a god, for his actions made him feared by many, and challenged by very few. Beowulf and Alexander are relatable in a sense of accomplishment, and although guided by different motives, one being the protection of his people, the other endless expansion, both are considered very prestigious warriors.
The story of Beowulf makes it clear from the beginning that any warrior who wants his name to be threaded in history, who wants to leave a legacy, must establish his reputation. The idea of reputation was one generally accepted by all, as conveyed in the first 200 lines by a coast-guard speaking to Beowulf, "Anyone with gumption and a sharp mind will take the measure of two things: what's said and what's done" (287-289, Beowulf). This quote gives some context to the significance matched with reputation, as it is not handed out freely, but rather must be truly earned. As exemplified in the famous quote by Alexander the Great, "How great are the dangers I face to win a good name in Athens," it is clear by this and by the entirety and severity of his life ambition that reputation and legacy was of utmost importance to Alexander. Both men being warriors of their people, Beowulf and Alexander the Great are very similar when it comes to ambition, reputation, and simply having a nature to strive for honor.
Reputation, however, must also be rooted by some tangible accomplishment, some trophy or token of victory obtained through valor, and both men indeed have the service record to show for it. A man so sought-after as the valiant Beowulf has no hesitation in flaunting himself, and once inquired the the lord of Danes to prove his heroism, he responds with, "every elder and experienced councilman among my people supported my resolve to come here to you, [...] because all know of my awesome strength. They had seen me boltered in the blood of enemies when I battled and bound five beasts, raided a troll-nest and in the night-sea slaughtered sea-brutes. I have suffered extremes and avenged the Geats" (415-423). All was completed under the honorable oath of a warrior, and has given Beowulf the experience needed to fend off Grendel, the most nasty of all creatures. Rather than conquering beasts, Alexander conquered kingdoms, roughly seven major ones, all for the expansion of his people and of the Hellenistic civilization. For around twelve years, Alexander was an unstoppable force, and anyone in the way of his plan for expansion was forced to either befriend the enemy or be trampled where they stood. For the better part of his life, Alexander held the reputation close to that of a god, for his actions made him feared by many, and challenged by very few. Beowulf and Alexander are relatable in a sense of accomplishment, and although guided by different motives, one being the protection of his people, the other endless expansion, both are considered very prestigious warriors.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
The Evolution of Our Words
There are countless words in our language called "borrowed" or "loaned"words, which have been taken from other languages and cultures by Englishmen from previous centuries.
In the past, whenever two cultures came into contact, whether it be from forced invasion or conquest, or by an agreed upon coexistence, new words were carried over, in most cases being "borrowed" by the Englishmen from Latin, Roman, German, Germanic, and numerous others.
The culture "adopting" foreign words was normally bi-lingual or somewhat proficient in the other language, and was therefore able to comprehend the meaning of the word. Often times a word was brought into use because it could express something that was previously indescribable, or added a synonymous quality to other already existent words, while introducing an alternate tone.
With time, new words became more widespread, eventually being used and understood even by those who did not speak the language of origin.
Because these words did originate from a foreign language, they morphed from use by those who spoke English, altering the sound and characteristics to better follow their own language and linguistic system. (German, French)
After thousands of years, these words have fallen into the vocabulary which we call our own, and their origins and original forms are lost.
-Aloof
From Dutch word loef, meaning "the weather side of a ship", nautical order to keep the ship away from a lee-shore (danger area), so came the meaning "at a distance". The word now carries more figurative meaning than literal.
-Orange
From Arabic, descended from Sanskrit. The orange tree is thought is have originated from India or Southeast Asia. The original word was naranj, and the Arabs introduced it to the Mediterranean region sometime during the 10th century. The n was eventually dropped.
-Sabre
Originated in Hungarian as szablya, meaning backsword. The word was then passed on to French, sabel or sabre, and German as säbel. Through those languages, the word was passed onto English, remaining as sabre.
-Pony
From French word: poulenet (now osbsolete), meaning "little foal". The word morphed from there.
In the past, whenever two cultures came into contact, whether it be from forced invasion or conquest, or by an agreed upon coexistence, new words were carried over, in most cases being "borrowed" by the Englishmen from Latin, Roman, German, Germanic, and numerous others.
The culture "adopting" foreign words was normally bi-lingual or somewhat proficient in the other language, and was therefore able to comprehend the meaning of the word. Often times a word was brought into use because it could express something that was previously indescribable, or added a synonymous quality to other already existent words, while introducing an alternate tone.
With time, new words became more widespread, eventually being used and understood even by those who did not speak the language of origin.
Because these words did originate from a foreign language, they morphed from use by those who spoke English, altering the sound and characteristics to better follow their own language and linguistic system. (German, French)
After thousands of years, these words have fallen into the vocabulary which we call our own, and their origins and original forms are lost.
-Aloof
From Dutch word loef, meaning "the weather side of a ship", nautical order to keep the ship away from a lee-shore (danger area), so came the meaning "at a distance". The word now carries more figurative meaning than literal.
-Orange
From Arabic, descended from Sanskrit. The orange tree is thought is have originated from India or Southeast Asia. The original word was naranj, and the Arabs introduced it to the Mediterranean region sometime during the 10th century. The n was eventually dropped.
-Sabre
Originated in Hungarian as szablya, meaning backsword. The word was then passed on to French, sabel or sabre, and German as säbel. Through those languages, the word was passed onto English, remaining as sabre.
-Pony
From French word: poulenet (now osbsolete), meaning "little foal". The word morphed from there.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Writing In History
1) Things Not Seen - Andrew Clements. This was my summer reading book for 5th grade, and I can safely say that this was the first book I really loved. It had the perfect combination of adventure, hardships, and a little love, and the way it was written, always with another "cliff hanger" around the corner made it a page-turner.
2) Hatchet - Gary Paulsen. I read this when I was in 6th grade as a recommendation from my English teacher, and found my immersed in the story of the heroic boy struggling to survive somehwere in Canada after he crash-landed his own plane. This book allows me to think back to the silly times when I would imagine myself being that heroic boy.
3) Fahrenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury. I found this book intriguing because it's one of those stories that could possibly give grounds to a very real but tremendously scary future, only to be retracted by the protagonist of the book who saves the day.
4) Catcher in the Rye - J. D. Salinger. I found myself relating to and agreeing with Holden more than any other character I've read. Finding that strong, almost tangible connection makes it stick in my mind very well.
5) Rise To Rebellion - Jeff Shaara. This book sticks in my mind because of the unique way in which it was written. It is one of the only war novels I have read with view points that flicker back and forth between two opposing powers during wartime. Not to mention the overshadowing presence of patriotism which brought goosebumps to my skin upon reading the final page.
6) Between a Rock and a Hard Place - Aron Ralston. This book does such a good job of tapping into the emotions of the reader that it would be a hard one to forget.
2) Hatchet - Gary Paulsen. I read this when I was in 6th grade as a recommendation from my English teacher, and found my immersed in the story of the heroic boy struggling to survive somehwere in Canada after he crash-landed his own plane. This book allows me to think back to the silly times when I would imagine myself being that heroic boy.
3) Fahrenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury. I found this book intriguing because it's one of those stories that could possibly give grounds to a very real but tremendously scary future, only to be retracted by the protagonist of the book who saves the day.
4) Catcher in the Rye - J. D. Salinger. I found myself relating to and agreeing with Holden more than any other character I've read. Finding that strong, almost tangible connection makes it stick in my mind very well.
5) Rise To Rebellion - Jeff Shaara. This book sticks in my mind because of the unique way in which it was written. It is one of the only war novels I have read with view points that flicker back and forth between two opposing powers during wartime. Not to mention the overshadowing presence of patriotism which brought goosebumps to my skin upon reading the final page.
6) Between a Rock and a Hard Place - Aron Ralston. This book does such a good job of tapping into the emotions of the reader that it would be a hard one to forget.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
A Rock Legend's Insider View
At the end of last year I read an autobiography called Scar Tissue, written by Anthony Kiedis from the Red Hot Chili Peppers, and I instantly thought of this after reading the question because of the overbearing amount of story-telling in the book. Kiedis has a very intriguing and very different style when it comes to telling his life story, one that I have never quite seen before, but one that I very much enjoyed reading. He has a certain way of writing that seems very natural, and as if it were written down straight from his spoken words, and the combination of this element with the eccentric and very personal nature of the stories themselves makes for quality story-telling.
One passage where this ability is phenomenally displayed is when Kiedis is talking about the band's drummer, Chad Smith. He reveals a very interesting dynamic about Smith that would only be recognized by those actually in the band, and he does so in a way that can be very easily related to by the reader, making the passage both very grasping to the interest and easy to understand.
"He stayed very much a man unto himself within this band. He has a whole different way of dealing with being the new guy, and that was 'I don't need them, I don't want them, I've got my own life.' He never showed any signs of needing to be in our inner circle. [...] When it came to clothes, his sensibilities were way different from ours, and I used to tease him about it all the time. He'd show up in 80's-looking purple double-breasted suits, and i'd say, 'Did you raid Arsenio's closet for that? He thankfully stopped teasing his hair when he joined the band, but instead of hanging out at a punk-rock dive like Small's with Flea and me, he'd go to the Mötley Crüe bar and wear funny jeans with belts and cowboy boots and play pool and go after rock chicks. [...] We found common ground in the music. Even there, his musical sensibility was different, but his energy and passion and the power he had for creating rhythm were unsurpassed. [...] We'd never had a drummer who had a supercharged angst battery that never seemed to run low. I shudder to think that we ever would have made him feel unwelcome or unwanted by giving him the same tough-love, boot-camp-style introduction into the band we gave John, but we did it because we cared about him, we wanted him to be close to us."
One passage where this ability is phenomenally displayed is when Kiedis is talking about the band's drummer, Chad Smith. He reveals a very interesting dynamic about Smith that would only be recognized by those actually in the band, and he does so in a way that can be very easily related to by the reader, making the passage both very grasping to the interest and easy to understand.
"He stayed very much a man unto himself within this band. He has a whole different way of dealing with being the new guy, and that was 'I don't need them, I don't want them, I've got my own life.' He never showed any signs of needing to be in our inner circle. [...] When it came to clothes, his sensibilities were way different from ours, and I used to tease him about it all the time. He'd show up in 80's-looking purple double-breasted suits, and i'd say, 'Did you raid Arsenio's closet for that? He thankfully stopped teasing his hair when he joined the band, but instead of hanging out at a punk-rock dive like Small's with Flea and me, he'd go to the Mötley Crüe bar and wear funny jeans with belts and cowboy boots and play pool and go after rock chicks. [...] We found common ground in the music. Even there, his musical sensibility was different, but his energy and passion and the power he had for creating rhythm were unsurpassed. [...] We'd never had a drummer who had a supercharged angst battery that never seemed to run low. I shudder to think that we ever would have made him feel unwelcome or unwanted by giving him the same tough-love, boot-camp-style introduction into the band we gave John, but we did it because we cared about him, we wanted him to be close to us."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)