Brand New Hero

When people look back, who will be seen as the heroes of our age? What artists' names will endure? What musician's work will resonate with future generations?

Perhaps this is merely a problem of perspective, and as members of this generation we are unable to recognise which of our contemporaries will achieve greatness, but it seems as though we lack people who can be numbered among the giants of the past.

Looking at the politicians of today it is easy to pick out the major players who will dominate the history books. However, there do not seem to be any people who would sacrifice their careers, their health, their lives for a cause merely people who are very good at the political game. There is no one like William Wilberforce, Gandhi, Lincoln, or even someone like Churchill who saw what needed to be done and did it, regardless of popular opinion, a fact which eventually cost him his career. There do not even seem to be the type of person powerful enough to define an age; no Robespierre or Napoleon, who, regardless of whether people see them as a hero or villain, had the power in their generation to change history with a word.

I don't see someone like Annie Lebowitz ever being listed with Da Vinci, Rembrandt or Picasso. As much as I love the work of Seamus Heaney I don't think he equals Elliott, Yeats, Milton or Dante. There is a lack of greatness among our generation.

I think this is largely the result of education. It is hard for genius to grow when everyone is taught at the same pace, held to the same standard, when there is one acceptable answer and deviation is not tolerated. This is not necessarily bad, it raises the fortunes of the majority a moderate amount as opposed to a few achieving greatness.

According to Henry Newman fostering greatness is not the purpose of education: "It neither confines its views to particular professions on the one hand, nor creates heroes or inspires genius on the other. It is the great ordinary means to an great but ordinary end; it aims at raising the intellectual tone of society, at cultivating the public mind, at purifying the national taste, at supplying true principles to popular enthusiasm and fixed aims to popular aspiration, at giving enlargement and sobriety to the ideas of the age, at facilitating the exercise of political power, and refining the intercourse of private life. It is the education which gives a man a clear conscious view of his own opinions and judgments, a truth in developing them, an eloquence in expressing them, and a force in urging them."

Yet, in an age when professional athletes are revered as never before, when the lives of pop sensations are followed with rabid enthusiasm, when the story of an orphaned wizard who might be the chosen one has launched an unparalleled franchise, when superheroes have finally become mainstream and widely popular, when a Batman movie was the summer blockbuster, it seems as though this is not enough and people want a hero, need greatness to inspire them.

(While not the original intent, this post may or may not have developed into an excuse to include the above picture by Alex Ross).

Wonder of Wonders

The world will never starve for want of wonders; but only for want of wonder. -- G. K. Chesterton

Is it written in the stars?

Words don't just tell the story-they can complete a deed, or they can begin one. The telling of a story can be part of the action itself. In the Anglo-Saxon world a deed was not complete until it was reported. That is why in Beowulf there is the recap once Beowulf returns home--he had to bring the story with him and report, else his task was not yet done. In this retelling the person is immortalized and the deed kept alive. If a persons deeds are great enough, they will be retold again and again, their tale preserved in stories and song. As Cohen says in The Last Hero, "I've got a sword and it's a good one, but all the bleedin' thing can do is keep someone alive ... A song can keep someone immortal."

Stories take on a life of their own, gaining a certain truthfulness regardless of the actual facts of the events they are reporting. They have the power to strike fear or to inspire, to teach or to caution. Every great person eventually fades from memory but the story endures, even if only in bits of popular wisdom or folklore.

"'In the olden days," she said, "when a hero had been really heroic, the gods would put them up in the stars." THE HEAVENS CHANGE, said Death. WHAT TODAY LOOKS LIKE A MIGHTY HUNTER MAY LOOK LIKE A TEACUP IN A HUNDRED YEARS' TIME. "That doesn't seem fair." NO ONE EVER SAID IT HAD TO BE. BUT THERE ARE OTHER STARS.'"

According to Genesis, the world was begun with a Word. The world then is the greatest story, which is constantly being told through peoples words and deed.

To Entertain Immortals

Words do indeed have power, each containing a meaning, allowing us to communicate. This is what allows us to preserve knowledge of all sorts: facts, songs, stories, and legacies. Words have the power to immortalize. Galileo says "looking to things even more stable and enduring, others have entrusted the immortal fame of illustrious men not to marble and metal but to the custody of the Muses and to imperishable literary monuments." He places this honor only under having a portion of the heavens, a constellation of stars, named after oneself because he believes only that is more enduring than having ones name and deeds preserved within words. 

This can be either a blessing or a punishment to men, depending on the deeds they perform throughout their lives. Compare the legacy of Julius Caesar to that of Brutus, Peter to Judas, Gandhi to Hitler. Each is remembered to this day for the choices he made during his life. This increases the accountability men have for their actions. Many discoveries and victories are the result of men searching for glory, trying to transcend their brief lives by having their accomplishments remembered. It is a constant concern of leaders. For what will they be remembered? It is  a guiding force in the back of every mind, affecting every choice, for with each man is creating his own legacy. 

Not all things are preserved in a truthful or accurate way. Often, the victor gets to tell the story. But even so, writers have a great responsibility - they must tell the story.

Not even Orwell could have dreamed this up

"…Text-messaging or The Sun, these are perfect Orwellian ways of limiting the vocabulary and thus limiting the consciousness…" -- Alan Moore

- 'Stand up and say your name!'

Why is it that we as persons are inclined to give out names as if on a whim? It can be said that one does not really know another until that others name is known. And, in the knowing of a name is power. But why, why do we have names at all, are we not content to be simply called man, as a lion is simply called a lion. But even onto lions, even onto animals we bestow names. If one has a pet usually a name is given, most of us do not simply say 'dog'. Are we so possessed that we name even inanimate objects? We are. We give names, we have names because we are different. One does not simply say man because that man is not the same as the previous one. They look different and the only way to differentiate between the two is with words.

One of our greatest freedoms is the power of speech. The power to articulate, the power to voice our thoughts and dreams, and the power to inspire others to dream. So great is the power of words that I am unable to adequately express them, so I will take a passage from one who is, G.K. Chesterton.

"Well, we won't quarrel about a word," said the other pleasantly.
"Why on earth not?" said MacIan, with a sudden asperity. "Why shouldn't we
quarrel about a word? What is the good of words if they aren't important enough
to quarrel over? Why do we choose one word over another if there isn't any
difference between them? If you call a women a chimpanzee instead of an angel,
wouldn't there be a quarrel about a word? If you're not going to argue about
words, what are you going to argue about? Are you going to convey your meaning to
me by moving your ears ? The Church and the heresies always used to fight about
words, because they are the only things worth fighting about. I say that murder
is a sin, and bloodshed is not, and that there is as much difference between
those two words as there is between the word 'yes' and the word 'no'; or rather
more difference, for 'yes' and 'no', at least, belong to the same category.
Murder is a spiritual incident. Bloodshed is a physical incident. A surgeon
commits bloodshed."

Such is the power of words. And so great is their power that we use them even when there is no one but us to hear. We talk to ourselves. "It may indeed been said that the word is never a more splendid mystery than when it travels in a man's mind from thought to conscience and then back again to thought."

Digital artifacts?

The peculiarities that accompany blogging have struck me repeatedly since beginning this. Since my last post, which touched briefly on some of the effects of technology, I have been thinking about the interesting relationship it has with information.

I doubt we have any readers this dedicated (obsessive), that they frequently peruse the blog as a whole, but if such a person were to exist they would probably note minute changes occur frequently. This is because I am compulsive and always believe that it could be a little bit better, slightly more polished, more articulately phrased or artistically laid out. In the past I have gone through phases where I kept a journal or diary (usually I would write compulsively for a week or two and then stop). Every edit, change in word choice, misspelling is evident on the page, layered, as the revision was written over it, while the margins are filled with doodles providing a more accurate view into what I was thinking and feeling. These journals are actual artifacts, which could be studied and mined for information (I am not sure what would be discovered except that my younger self was very strange, but it is the nature of the medium and not the content which is the point). When I make changes on the blog, all you see is the new finished product, no evidence of the process behind it.

I do not believe that books will eventually die out and everything will become digitized but it is interesting to consider the possibility. Books, and the information they contain, can be lost or destroyed--just look at the library of Alexandria. However, a book itself is static and cannot be altered without the creation of a new entity. If everything were converted to digital media there is no guarantee that information remains constant. It almost seems like the perfect Orwellian plot-information kept in such a way that it could be constantly, subtly manipulated. Kind of like this blog. . .

Words and Meaning

I am amazed at how well Aloysha's comments about exclamation marks dovetailed with this weeks quote of the week, and a little worried that he thinks like Alan Moore. However, they both have a very good point--words have power and the ability to offer freedom, but only if we allow them.

Language is not static, influxes of new groups of people add new words to a language while technological innovation and new discoveries or theories in the sciences or social sciences necessitate new words to express them. Great poets and writers also craft words to fit their meaning, enriching the English language. The problem then is not that language changes, but rather the speed at which it is currently changing and the fact that it seems to be contracting rather than expanding.

Modern trends in slang have been to over use adjectives, thus stripping them of their weight and power. Awesome is a prime example--no longer is it reserved for things that do truly inspire awe but is now used to describe everything from new shoes, to a card trick, to not having any homework. Weird, whose root means fate, used to refer to something that seemed out of the ordinary in either a supernatural sense or a fateful sense. Now it is any deviation from the status quo, or worse, anything which makes us slightly uncomfortable. The devaluation of language has been exacerbated by instant messaging and text speak which encourage people to boil down feelings and emotions to acronyms or emoticons. This limits the range of feeling which a person can express--instead of being sad or melancholic or disconsolate or morose or despondent or forlorn or upset, all of which have a slightly different shade of meaning, you are now :(

While this is not a government conspiracy and there is no big brother watching your every move, George Orwell, in the appendix on Newspeak in 1984, best expressed the effect of pairing down language. He says, "the purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. . . . Countless other words such as honour, justice, morality, internationalism, democracy, science, and religion had simply ceased to exist. A few blanket words covered them, and, in covering them, abolished them."

Replacing vast swaths of words with a single one or overusing words until they have lost all nuance and retain only the most basic of meaning limits people ability to express themselves. This is turn, limits freedom for, as Orwell pointed out, if you cannot vocalize an idea or a feeling you cannot share it and so it becomes dead. If words are the currency of thought devaluing them is detrimental to all of society.

Lift your gaze on high

And, though all other animals are prone, and fix their gaze upon the earth, he gave to man an uplifted face and bade him stand erect and turn his eyes to heaven. -- Ovid

We shall overcome their power!

First off the title of this post has an exclamation point in it. This is in the attempt to demonstrate the passion with which the line is being said. But I think that, at least in my eyes, this mark of feeling has been altered from what it should be and has been transformed into something on the verge of being superficial. This exclamation mark therefore fails to capture my intended meaning, which causes me to Wonder why? It is a truly remarkable symbol, one meant to evoke a feeling of power and wonder. Yet this feeling can be excitement, joy, anger, and courage, or it can simply be used to show increased volume. Even when one simply looks at it the exclamation point is incredible, unlike any other symbol. Come to think of it, all the letters of our language are remarkable. Each being different than the others and representing a different meaning with its own distinct sounds and distinctive characteristics. But how we view these letters are derived from our experience with them; how they are used in reading and writing. When we listen to intelligent people and read eloquent and thoughtful works we are influenced. This is the power of words. The power which all the distinct letters are able to create when put into words. Words which arranged are capable of unbelievable things. Therefore I deem that the ways in which I have seen the exclamation point being used are what has led to its loss of value. And the way to remedy the situation, to give ! back its grandeur is to use it intelligently and passionately. The exclamation point must be reclaimed!

I have no idea where that last paragraph came from, I simply wrote. But now on to the actual subject of this post; art. Both Enjolras and Robert Owen Hood have recently spoken on the subject, so I feel obliged to do the same. Art is the closest representation of dreams. It is the attempted perfection of persons, and the aspirations of all people. Art gives us an opportunity to portray things in the way which they actually appear. "Artists use art to tell the lies that politicians try to cover up." It is where we create, it is one of the ways with which we can we make a difference in this world. And we must choose to make a difference, we must choose to fight. People must take initiative and change. We must vote and we must care or we shall fail our potential. We will cease to create and art will die. We must care about events such as that of yesterday; November Fifth, and like Guy Fawkes we must try to make a difference.

The change it had to come

This past weekend has been tumultuous, bring up many things to ponder and not nearly enough time in which to ponder them. So in attempt to order my thoughts and to test if the unified thread running through all of them works, this post will be an amalgamation of some of these musings.

I feel as though we have just begun to scratch the surface in our discussion of art and I believe and stand by everything that has been said. However, I am reading Stephen King's memoir "On Writing" in which he makes the point that "Life isn't a support system for art. It is the other way around." Art should be an end not a means to an end. But it cannot stop there, art should not be a dead thing that once created lies there, it must give back and go beyond itself. Art should engender a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment in the artist, it should evoke a sense of wonder and greater understanding of the world, or at least of its mystery, in the viewer and it should spark a dialogue between other artists. While the existence of art enriches the world on its own it should also create an environment and a mindset which fosters discussion, and wonder and speaks to the human soul. Art is one of the tools which change the world.

Today is the 5th of November a day other parts of the world celebrate as Guy Fawkes day. It is a day largely given over to bonfires and fireworks, which are celebrations of a concept. While the holiday was begun to celebrate the survival of Parliament and the foiling of a serious terrorist plot the day is named after the leader of the conspiracy Guy Fawkes, and in a way is celebration of him. In his journal several years ago Neil Gaiman said this about the day, "As a boy I wasn't sure whether we were meant to be celebrating Guy Fawkes as someone who tried to change the system by doing something about it, or whether it was just that the English love a good loser. When I grew up I realised that it was a thanksgiving for the fact that the Parliament had not been exploded." The first reason though is an equally good reason for a celebration and Guy Fawkes today should serve as a reminder to citizens that if they want the world to change, they need to take steps to make it occur. I am not advocating blowing things up or terrorism of any kind. However, our country was founded in the spirit of activism with people upset by unreasonable taxes doing something about it. Women's suffrage, the civil rights movement, ending American involvement in Vietnam-- all of these were issues spear pointed by citizen activism.

That brings me to my last point. I am sorry for bringing this up, because after 2 years of constant campaigning I am sure this is the last thing you want to hear about, but I am, like everyone else, going to comment on the election. In all of the campaigning and the speeches and the promises no politician dared to ask something of the American people. No one said "the economy is going through a rough patch, we may have to gird our belts for a while" or "if we are going to beat poverty, violence, and a poor education we need each and everyone of you to go out into your community and do what you can" or "it may be hard for people for people in those industries but if we want to stay competitive in a changing world we are going to need change and reform in farming, energy and education." Both candidates made populist promises pandering to special interest groups instead of offering a realistic prognosis of the situation and calling on the ingenuity and resilience of the American people to step up and solve those challenges. In fact, no president has do so since Kennedy with his famous inaugural address telling people to "ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country." If you expect nothing from the people than that is exactly what you will get.

Someone once said, and I am convinced that it was James Madison but I cannot find the quote so I will attribute it to the all knowing someone, "We are politicians and soldiers so that our children can become doctors and scientists and their children can be poets and artists." We need people working at every one of these levels to bring about the change necessary, from people who deal with making sure that the basic needs are met for everyone to people who nourish our souls with poetry and painting. And we need these people to inspire us to go beyond ourselves and make our own contributions to the world. As Gandhi said, "Be the change you wish to see."

We need only await it with confidence and receive it with gratitude.

"Throughout the world sounds one long cry from the heart of the artist: 'Give me the chance to do my very best.'"
-- Babette's Feast