"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding."

The ending to Lord of the Flies is very dark. Now obviously, the boys get saved, but it is not a happy reunion with civilized society. "The tears began to flow and sobs shook him... Ralph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man's heart, and the fall through the air of the true, wise friend called Piggy" (Golding 207-208). Ralph finally breaks down, letting all this pent up emotion go, crying for all this terrible stuff that has happened and that the best of his friends, the smart one, the logical one, has died. It is not gleeful, or happy, or up lifting. Even thought they are rescued, and can leave this awful place, they are not ecstatic. I just try to imagine the long ride home, and how awkward it will be. I mean, mere moments earlier, they were all trying to kill Ralph, masked in war paint and brandishing spears of wood, meaning to hunt and murder him, and now they're sitting silently, civil, in the same room. Also, I found it interesting how the description of the savages goes as the officer arrives. Before the arrival of the officer, they are described as,"the savage... a brown figure" (Golding 205). But after the officer arrives, or at least once they meet him, they turn into, "A semicircle of little boys..." (Golding 206). They turn from these large, intimidating, primitive, beasts capable of terrible acts of savagery into small boys, playing at survival, " 'Fun and games,' " (Golding 206). Their actions seem so unlikely, small, insignificant and childish, they aren't expected. Also, one of the Officer's remarks - the civilized representative of society - addressing the small savages really got to me, " 'What have you been doing? Having a war or something?' " (Golding 206). No, that's for the civilized ones. That's for you.

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

Well, some of the more obvious symbols in Lord of the Flies are Piggy representing intelligence, logic, and scientific thought, the conch representing order and concrete society, and the island representing the human mind. It is this last symbol that I am going to focus on, as it encompasses many of the other symbols. Each character represents an emotion or characteristic, and each object represents some value. As human thought and consciousness (the airplane and the boys) crashes into the mind (the island) after some horrific accident (the shooting down of the plane), chaos starts to ensue. At first, intelligence (Piggy) is prevalent and keenly felt, and strength and bravery (Ralph) takes over, while kindness and goodness (Simon) is out and about, acting often and being a large part of the whole society of mind. But savagery and bloodlust (Jack) and evil (Roger) slowly wear away at the rest of the mind. Almost at the very beginning, innocence (the littlun with the mulberry birthmark) is lost to some early, un-thought- out act (the forest fire). Then, as bloodlust gains more and more power, it envelops some group of unsure-ness (the hunters) to go and get the first drop of blood, of lust (the sow). Then savagery completely loses itself, and throws power away from strength and intelligence and order, and the masses, the actions (the whole of the boys) follow after savagery, and kindness is held down, blamed, while savagery and evil gain power.

"I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious."

So next week is the opening of A Christmas Carol, the show we are putting on for Monarch High School’s fall play. We are doing it in steampunk style, which is basically an over-dramatization of an alternate future in which steam-powered machinery took over, and basically finer internal software never developed and everything is giant factory, brass and bronze gears and pipes, all over a Victorian England setting. I am in tech as well as an actor. I play Topper, Fred (Scrooge’s nephew)’s friend that accompanies him to his Christmas dinner party.  As for tech, I am in set tech, and we have been building the set diligently for the past couple of weeks. Doc (Gwendolyn Lukas-Doctor), our theater director, and Kelsey Kaisershot, the assistant director have endeavored to put on the show in one month. It’s a pretty tall order, and for the past week and a half, select few members of set tech (including myself) have been staying until at least 7:30 each night working. We are so close and yet so far from finishing. We will see.

"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."

Piggy is a very interesting character in Lord of the Flies. He is really the representation and personification of intelligence, logic, scientific thinking, and intellect in their group, but he is ignored. He is overweight, has asthma and glasses, and can’t swim. “He was shorter than the fair boy and very fat… [And wore] thick spectacles” (Golding 5) As such he is basically ignored or dismissed as insignificant, and in Jack’s case he is hated. But, he is the voice of reason and organization “what intelligence had been shown was traceable to Piggy,” (Golding 21) and is the one to suggest the keeping of a list of names, of people in the civilization, and is the one that goes around, attempting to learn the names of everyone and organize them into something recognizable.

"Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school."

One of the most common, and appropriate, metaphors for satire is a mirror. The satirist holds the mirror up to whatever facet of society he or she is choosing to target, and points out the flaws, follies, and corruptions that exist there. As the target looks at the mirror, being constantly told of the flaws that exist on its metaphorical face, the target is driven to change, and to fix whatever is wrong with it. Satire as an instrument for societal change is very effective, and serves the purpose of exposing the blemish and changing society by exposing ill.

The toolbox of the satirist overfloweth with methods of revelation to the target. One of the most commonly used is exaggerated imitation, when the satirist adopts the character: the beliefs, the logic, and the reasoning of the target, and augments them to a level that is so extreme that the premise is dismissed at first as ridiculous, but then is realized to be alluding to the more moderate and actual folly of the target, exposing it. A Modest Proposal is nothing if not a giant exaggeration of the British's horrible treatment and oppression of the Irish. "A young healthy child well nursed is at a year old is a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food... may, at a year old, be offered in the sale to the persons of good quality and fortune... to render them plump and fat for a good table" (Swift 3). Swift suggests that the elite of the British eat the babies of the Irish lower class in order to lesson the large number of impoverished youth in the society, as well as to provide a new food source. This proposal (deemed "modest" by Swift himself) is of course only to be taken with absolute horror and disgust. But then Swift's undeniable logic comes to light, and one can recognize it as an only slightly more extreme version of the logic the British protestants use constantly to justify their exploitation of the Irish, and the realization of the terrible treatment of the Irish is exposed. "I think the advantages by the proposal which I have made are obvious and many... the poorer tenants will have something valuable of their own... their corn and cattle being already seized, and money a thing unknown" (Swift 6). Swift uses this excuse, of giving them material wealth and an economic boost, to justify the taking and consumption of the Irish children, while at the same time reminding the readers, the targets (the elite British class) that they have already treated the Irish like animals, that they have taken away the food and wealth from the Irish and left them with nothing without so much as a smidgen of remorse. 

A tool also used by Swift is wit. This tool is basically the crafty, knife-tongued manner in which a satirist goes about his or her case. "I can think of one objection... that will possibly be raised against this proposal... that the number of people will be thereby much lessoned in the kingdom." (Swift 8). This is a great example of wit because Swift's argument is so beautifully cunning and wily. Swift takes an objection that he believes will be prominent - or at least that he 'believes' on a literal level, at a deeper level obviously he doesn't think that will be the ONLY objection - the whole eating babies thing is pretty objectionable - and retaliates to it, defending it with an air and style only achievable by the most devious and canny of authors. He goes on to say, in defense against the objection, "this I freely own, and 'twas indeed one principal design" (Swift 8). He says that he meant this aspect to be a part of the plan, and that any objections that may be raised are only facets of the plan the unintelligent reader, the target, has yet to see. He takes whatever argument can be thought of and throws it out the window before it is even presented. But it's not just how he deviously defends against this 'objection', it's that he is also mocking those that take out of consideration any arguments against their cause before they are even put into consideration, if they are at all.

Another common tool of the all-powerful satirist is plain, good old scathing mockery and sarcasm. To take an example a little more modern than 18th century Ireland, in Family Guy- Undecided Voters, Brian declares to Lois at an electoral debate "Undecided voters are the biggest idiots on the planet" (Family Guy). There really aren't that many layers to that statement. It is just a nice, straightforward mockery of undecided voters, calling them stupid. Now on its own, this is not a very effective satirical method, and instead of solving some flaw of society may result in a massive conflict between the targets and the satirist's demographic. But combined with the exaggerated showcase that comes later in the clip, of the undecided voters eating up and falling for short, simple, completely nonsensical answers. It exposes the fact that while undecided voters might not be legitimately unintelligent, but they do like the candidate they'd "like to have a beer with"(Family Guy) rather than the candidate that actually has a better platform and is a better person for the job. The straightforward mockery takes the exposed ill directly to the face of the target, without underlying layers or complicated verbal irony. It points out the ill, or at least some result or characteristic of it, and then (hopefully - assuming the satirist is at least moderately proficient) explains why, using some other method, and then allows the target to fix the ill and prove wrong the mockery.

Satire is a tool. Sure, it is a tool for entertainment; a pastime and a hobby, maybe even a job or money-maker. It even is a tool one can use to put their makeup on. But first and foremost satire is a tool, molded by other tools, for the changing of the world. It is used to point to and expose the wrongs of society and the world; it can show the folly, and can aid in the repair of the flaw and the betterment of society. The mirror the satirist holds is full of idiocy, always filled to the brim with wrong that the satirist can attack. But all the wrong is pointed out only if it can be fixed, only if the underlying intention of the satirist is to help mend. And so in that way satire exists as a tool for help, and will continue as long as there exists imbecility in society, which is as long as society is the product of humanity.

The best example of satire we had was probably Family Guy - Undecided Voters. i love that clip. Literally, the clip is saying that undecided voters are very stupid, and respond extraordinarily well to pointless answers about 9/11, and jesus, and stuff like that. It is actually revealing a very deep and characteristic part of American politics. Voters don't seem to actually care about the views of politicians, they care about friendliness, charm, a good smile, They respond to the "hang-out-able-ness" of politicians. They like the sound of someone's voice, they vote for them. It's terrible - it means the politicians elected to office are not those that will do the best job for the country, they are those with the charm to manipulate the masses. It is a very eye-opening clip.

"Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own."

Jonathan Swift was born on November 30, 1667. He received a bachelor's degree from Trinity College (http://www.biography.com/people/jonathan-swift-9500342 biography.com). He received a Master's from Oxford in 1692. He was ordained a priest in the Church of Ireland (a sect of the Anglican church in Ireland) in 1695 and was awarded a D.D. from Dublin University in 1701.  (http://www.victorianweb.org/previctorian/swift/chron.html A Chronology of Jonathan Swift's Life by David Cody). 

"There is an almost complete absence of sustained scholarship on the subject of Swift's Modest Proposal." (George Wittkowsky, via eNotes.com Jonathan Swift essay)


"Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own."(Jonathan Swift, via BrainyQuote.com)

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

Human stupidity is definitely a common theme in satire. This is a 3-part series by John Oliver, as featured on The Daily Show. It focuses on the US gun control debate following the failure of mild legislation in . Oliver does some investigating around the Australian gun control legislation passed in 1996. 

In part 1, he interviews a strong gun advocate and Virginia Defense League lobbyist member Phillip Van Cleave. During the interview, his slightly sarcastic, demeaning, scathing manner is unnoticed by Van Cleave, and he answers the questions in exactly the way Oliver expects, his ultimate reason behind not supporting the legislation being that it doesn't work. And so, Oliver's sarcastic and subtly scathing answer brings us to Australia. There he interviews various politicians in a character mocking Van Cleave, full of absolutely dreadful logic, he asks questions of the Australian politicians about, all the while insisting that the legislation didn't work, but being told otherwise, he then brings the questions back to Van Cleave and scathingly presents to him the statistics. And of course, there's a small amount of mocking Australians. In part 2, Oliver interviews Harry Reid's aid Jim Manley, and Manley, saying that what's most important for politicians is to be re-elected, then sparks Oliver's newest mocking-point. He returns to the Australian politicians under the character of Manley, stating that political suicide is the most tragic thing, and that the most important thing is just being in office and being re-elected to office rather than actually helping people. He even goes so far as to build a memorial to those that committed "political suicide" on the day the legislation is passed. In part 3, Oliver returns to Phillip Van Cleave, and the conversation turns to the similarities with Australia that America has. Van Cleave says none, and Oliver responds with a scathing remark of exactly how America and Australia are frighteningly alike, sarcastically masking it as how they are different, and Van Cleave, unaware of how he's being mocked, nods in agreement. Then Oliver returns to Australia and asks them about the similarities of the US and Australia, comparing the similar arguments against gun control that Australians then and Americans now are presenting. He asks people if not being under the risk of getting shot in the face is worth not having guns, and everyone says yeah, it's worth it. He even goes to an ex-anti gun control advocate, still in the character of we all need guns and gun control won't work, and the ex-advocate says that he's actually become ok with the legislation over the years. Oliver, or at least Oliver's character, is flummoxed, and mocking the Australian way of life, goes on a "classic Australian retreat" where he meets a "kangaroo" and becomes a karate master. So, overall just a lot of mocking pro-gun advocates and a little of mocking Aussies.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3: 

"Just as with the man in the fairy tale who turned whatever he touched into gold, with me everything is turned into newspaper clamor." part 2

The hero's poster were all very cool. Now of course there's always some uncertainty of actually finishing the assignment as part of a group of 4 teenage boys. Needless to say, there could definitely have been more effort and supplies put in, but I do think it turned out quite well. We did our project about Bilbo Baggins of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Even though the movie is the first of a trilogy covering the entire story arc of the book, the story within the first movie actually conforms to the Hero's Journey pretty well. I feel our presentation could have gone better, but I am actually fairly proud of how the poster itself turned out.

As for the other presentations, there were actually a lot of characters that I had never even considered as fitting the Hero's Journey. The example that stands out the most for me is Rapunzel, from the movie Tangled. I absolutely love that movie (I am moderately ashamed to admit), but I had never thought of the Hero's Journey as conforming to that storyline. however, it works extraordinarily well. The whole leaving home, and adventuring, and finding yourself and all that stuff happens exactly in sequence. And not only that, but their poster turned out incredibly! They had a giant yarn braid, and there was glitter all over. It was really cool. I mean, it pays to have actual artistic talent.

"Just as with the man in the fairy tale who turned whatever he touched into gold, with me everything is turned into newspaper clamor."

I believe The Hobbit is a very good example of the hero’s journey, the man in the fairy tale. Granted, the movie only covers a segment of the story, as there is to be three of them, but the entire journey There And Back Again is a very good example. Bilbo starts off a meek hobbit, not wanting adventure, when he meets Gandalf, who encourages him to adventure, and then thrusts him into it as the dwarf feast goes underway. They first go into the unknown, and the first challenge happens, once they start the adventure and meet the giants. They go on through the descent to find and meet goblins in the mountains, where Bilbo hits his abyss in a literal abyss; Gollum is about to kill and eat him, he is deep underground and lost, when he starts running as fast as he can, and figures out the ring he found, Gollum’s precious, renders the wearer invisible. From that point on, after the escape from the goblins and Gollum, Bilbo starts growing, from helping save them from the Wargs, leading through the dark forest, rescuing them from the giant spiders, and breaking them out of the Elven prison, and leads them to The Lonely Mountain. There he goes in and talks to the dragon Smaug, and searching the piles of treasure and finding the Heart of the Mountain. Then, as war is breaking out on the slopes of The Lonely Mountain, he uses the Heart of the Mountain, a trinket of immeasurable wealth, as a bargaining tool to prevent war, and succeeds (in preventing war between dwarves and elves & men), and then stands his ground and fights in the Battle of Five Armies (dwarves, elves, and men against goblins and wargs). He returns to the world of the normal with massive wealth of gold and silver to Bag End after the long journey home.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

I really like space, and the universe. I really starting feeling this again earlier in the week, the whole infinite thing, when I started really thinking about it. I hadn’t really thought about it since I realized I couldn’t be an astronaut as a result of my asthma. But space is just so fascinating to me. There is this factoid that just blows me away. If the sun were scaled down to the size of a white blood cell, the galaxy would be as large as the continental united states. What?  WHAT?!? I mean, holy crap. And then you look at how big the entire universe is in relation to the galaxy, something just completely ridiculous. But lets try to understand this. First we need to understand how big the sun is. Now if you go outside, and look outwards in all directions, you can see for miles. The horizon, the area of the earth you can see is basically the biggest thing you can actually picture in your mind in relation to yourself. This circle isn’t even the size of Colorado, let alone the US and let alone the whole world. Now, the whole world is in relation to the sun just about a human to the moon (I think). So the sun is unfathomably large: I mean, so is the earth. So then we scale down that fucking massive thing to a white blood cell, something so small we can’t even see it, and then the galaxy is the size of the country. It’s ridiculous! The time it takes for light – light, ok, the stuff that travels so fast you would literally go back in time if you went faster than it – to travel across the length of the galaxy is ages! It’s centuries! The galaxy is so fucking huge! And then the whole of space -> galaxy is something like Jupiter -> dust mite. And there is so much possibility out there! So many possible things that lie undiscovered, things that can be beautiful, awe-inspiring, things that could literally send everything we think we know about the universe spinning off its ass. And that is incredible to me. There is so much beauty, so many undiscovered things, and so much possibility.