A Wrinkle in Time
discussion
Possibly the worst book I have ever read.
message 101:
by
King Shit of Turd Mountain
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Jan 08, 2015 07:46PM
But alas - he claimed to be God in the flesh. The Bible claims to be the word of God, albeit spoken through man, so although he may not have penned the book himself, he definitely claims to have. Authors with ghostwriters do this all the time, it is not that uncommon. He may have outsourced like a sandal wearing VC Andrews, but at the end of the day he is more than happy to put his name on the cover (of very rare additions anyway).
reply
|
flag
But alas - he claimed to be God in the flesh. The Bible claims to be the word of God, albeit spoken through man, so although he may not have penned the book himself, he definitely claims to have. Authors with ghostwriters do this all the time, it is not that uncommon. He may have outsourced like a sandal wearing VC Andrews, but at the end of the day he is more than happy to put his name on the cover (of very rare additions anyway).
No KSOFTM. He never claimed to be GOD in the Flesh. That was for Paul and the other Brainiacs to claim. He couldn't have claimed to have penned the Bible as it wasn't written until after he met his Cross.
I may be confusing my knowledge of Jesus on Jesus Christ Superstar.
Sorry that was my stupid iPhone decided that I was finished with that comment, even though I was not. 1 Star for you iPhone.What I was going to say was that I could be confusing my knowledge of the New Testament with Jesus Christ Superstar, which I must have watched 100 times. This was the best version. If I was God, THAT is the version I would put my name to because THAT is how you write a good sci-fi story. Great ambiguous ending that both the religious and the non-religious can equally enjoy. Was he the King of Kings, or was he, like me, a deluded fool? I guess we will never really know, but both are equally as plausible. Very Philip K Dick / Nolanesque. 5 Stars.
Sorry that was my stupid iPhone decided that I was finished with that comment, even though I was not. 1 Star for you iPhone.What I was going to say was that I could be confusing my knowledge of the New Testament with Jesus Christ Superstar, which I must have watched 100 times. This was the best version. If I was God, THAT is the version I would put my name to because THAT is how you write a good sci-fi story. Great ambiguous ending that both the religious and the non-religious can equally enjoy. Was he the King of Kings, or was he, like me, a deluded fool? I guess we will never really know, but both are equally as plausible. Very Philip K Dick / Nolanesque. 5 Stars.
King Shit of Turd Mountain wrote: "Sorry that was my stupid iPhone decided that I was finished with that comment, even though I was not. 1 Star for you iPhone.What I was going to say was that I could be confusing my knowledge of t..."
A knowledge of Jesus Christ Superstar is not a knowledge of the New Testament.
What? This is news to me. And all this time I thought it was a documentary. Hmmm I did think something was a bit fishy withy that little verse:"Mathew, Mark, Anthony Lloyd Webber, Tim Rice, Luke and John / Hold the horse while I get on."
I always thought the first line was a little heavy. And why do two guys only get the full name treatment? Seems a little unfair to the others. Well I was closer than my brother at least. He came home adding some guy called "Martin Scorsese" to the list. Who has ever heard of a Martin Scorsese? Crazy I told him. Lazy teachers down here in Australia I think to be honest.
Well at least the Jesus Christ Superstar version stops at the right spot. It keeps you guessing. It's great sci-fi because it looks as if he may have just got carried away, but if he is right ... Holy Moly that changes everything I've ever known about EVERYTHING. What the hell does that make the universe then? If any version could come close to converting me, it is that one.
The Bible version just goes on and on, like 'The Return of The King'. They try to introduce new characters, but it just doesn't have the same depth. I think they blew the budget for special effects as there are way less miracles. It's like if the last Harry Potter didn't have Harry or magic, but was just about Dumbledoor writing letters to try and franchise out Hogwarts. We can have too much detail, you've really got to know when to stop (like I should have 90-odd comments ago). I blame the Romans for that. Saul/Paul adding all his personal admin paperwork, the crazy interpretive horoscope dream parts - it got a little weird towards the end, and that really distracted from the main theme, which I believe was both to simply love one another and possibly to start Internet forum fights.
Stick with Jesus Christ Superstar I say - I think it says much more about the human condition in respects to multiple characters. Also, what about Jesus' parables? I'm no copyright lawyer either, but I dare say given that they were spoken in a public forum for the express intention of entertainment they could be considered Jesus' intellectual property. And if he DIDN'T author the bible, (which means I no longer need capitalise it's spelling), You know what? ... I think we may have a HUGE copyright case on our hands. He did say he was coming back, so the day he does ... Can you imagine the royalties he will be owed? I don't want to swear, but I think the Catholic Church is going to be faaaaaaaaaaarked.
King Shit of Turd Mountain wrote: "*** NOTE: If you do not want to read my comment (TL;DNR), please just skip straight to the other 1 star reviews and read them instead. ***This is quite possibly the worst book I have ever read, a..."
The fact that a book met resistance by publishers says little about the quality of the book. In fact, history is full of great books that were not well received initially. You know what other authors have had very successful books turned down repeatedly before acceptance? James Joyce, Stephen King (Carrie), and Margaret Mitchell (Gone with the Wind) among many others.
Your "review" was a long way to say nothing. You apparently did not like the book but did not cite even one passage to demonstrate why any of the things you said should be worth considering. This was nothing but a rant, and bitter at that. From a self-proclaimed literary critic, I would expect much more.
I give your review one star and suggest no one read it
unless you hate your children and yourself.
I loved the books as a child. No idea there was any preaching. Found the vague and unpersonified "evil" very scary. Deeply understood the fear and had nightmares about all the balls bouncing in time. The science therein intrigued me and set a pattern for my life. Perhaps some adults should not try to read children's books without a child alongside.
Catskill wrote: "I loved the books as a child. No idea there was any preaching. Found the vague and unpersonified "evil" very scary. Deeply understood the fear and had nightmares about all the balls bouncing in tim..."Catskill, you are right about reading children's literature to children aiding in appreciation. I find my daughter's positive reaction to some books helps me keep an open mind and find the good when I am feeling snarky about the language or plot.
Also, by the way... you read "Tea with the Black Dragon"?!?! I loved that book.
Yes, Fred, I did. I had forgotten all about it. Thanks for the reminder. Also, a title that just came to me as I recalled "Tea," is "Red Moon, Black Mountain." Can't remember anything specific but that I loved it.
Thank you for your contribution to this thread, Lis. You've, single-handedly, turned a lengthy, over-the-top rant into a thought-provoking discussion. And thank you, Mr Turd Mountain, for demonstrating how we can perceive a difference of our own opinion to be such a threat that we might try to prevent others from experiencing a book that many have enjoyed.
I say this because my mind has been opened as to why the one book I hated has such a high rating on this site.
Plenty of thought for my day!
King Shit of Turd Mountain wrote: "Madaline wrote: "Do not get testy. Those who dish it out must learn to take it. Voicing my opinion, same as you. Reconsider the major (wink wink(: )Happy New Year"
Madaline, I promise I will..."
The word ¨fuck¨ is highly disrespectful and if one is involved with a significant other or spouse in a loving way, the act merits more than this jungle term.
The word is crude, its intent is crude in usage and reduces the act of making love to a simple orgasmic experience devoid of tenderness and care for the partner. So unless your act of ¨fucking¨ is that and only that, why there is nothing hypocritical in using that term, but then so many of the rest of us are a bit aghast that you haven't other feelings in doing the act other than getting your ¨rocks off¨ or giving your clitoris a ride to ecstasy.
King Shit of Turd Mountain wrote: "Doesn't Christianity, fall into 'the dangers of unthinking conformity' category? The entire message is a little hypocritical to me. Lets bend highly scientific theory so obscure that it already ver..."No, there are many people of Christian faith or other religious adherence who study their book of faith and think about it in a theological way, analyzing it, dissecting its meaning and pondering its moral teaching, whether it be the Koran, Old or New Testament or Bhaghvadid Gita (sp.)
Your royal highness:bad week for your opinion about this book here in the American media...
First, Time magazine names it as the number 4 Young Adult book of all time. (They defined YA as ages 12 and up, so maybe I was wrong about reading it when I was 8. That was 35 years ago, so my dates could be a bit fuzzy.)
And then there was this article in the New York Times Magazine section today: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/mag...
Yes, Jack, but the NYTM will only conform his royal highness's deluded criticism of our being but just mindless conformists.
Yes, Jack, but the NYTM will only conform his royal highness's deluded criticism of our being but just mindless conformists.Maybe you were a precocious reader. I read the Bible when I was six, not that I knew what they were talking about when ¨Shem lain down with Rebecca¨.
message 120:
by
King Shit of Turd Mountain
(last edited Jan 12, 2015 01:13AM)
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Jack wrote: "Your royal highness:bad week for your opinion about this book here in the American media...
First, Time magazine names it as the number 4 Young Adult book of all time. (They defined YA as ages 1..."
Jack,
My prolonged silence over the past couple of days should make it no surprise to you that this news has not gone down well at Turd Mountain. As the Royal Envoy delivered this message to me personally I saw not only fear but a great sorrow in his eyes; for he knew my heart would be torn at his every dreadful word.
For days I paced (well it is a Turd Castle so it was more like sliding around - imagine Tom Cruise in 'Risky Business') about my lonely mahogany castle of filth, questioning all I knew of myself as a constant stream of tears rained down on the floors of the great hall.
Even my giant hubris fell ill at the terrible news - no amount of stroking the great beast could raise it from the depths to which it had fallen. How could a publication of such grandeur, of such prestige do such a thing? How could this book be the No. 4 YA book of all time? What manner of cruel list is this?
I began to wonder to myself if perhaps I was wrong about this book. If I were mistaken. "Impossible" I thought - and yet there was the proof.
It was then that I remembered the wise words that were once spoken to me.
"[D]o you blindly look for lists other people make of the top 10, 20, 100 or however many books you MUST read before you die? I've seen those lists, there's a lot of books on those lists I haven't read and I'm not going to read. You know why?
Because they don't interest me. A million people might tell me I'm wrong, but I ain't living their life."
I realised that this wisdom didn't just apply to lists of books you MUST read, but any form of list that suggested some books better than others. What a fool I had been, if only I had listened to these words more closely. Encouraged by these sage words alone I found just enough strength to kick the mighty hubris, who awoke in a rage from his pathetic state of weakness.
It immediately began screaming at me. It yelled "If this book is so important, if it means so much to so many people, then surely those people have been somewhat changed by the author's lessons."
"Well yes," I agreed. "Surely whatever it was that I misread between the lines of this No. 4 YA fiction of all time has been imparted onto others."
"But, you see, it has NOT."
"What? I do not understand oh attractive and youthful one," I replied.
"The lesson it sought to teach above all others is that Love can defeat evil. YOU are that great dark evil, sitting there on your chair, typing anonymously to the Internet."
"Where are you going with thi-"
"Shut-UP and just listen for once in your life," my hubris cut me off. "You see if this book was of such import, if it were so powerful, then those who oppose you would be attempting to beat you with LOVE for the book, not hatred for your hubris."
"I am beginning to understand ..."
"So you read something that you detested, and you went online and ranted about it. You offered nothing but hatred. So people read your post, and they detested what they read. In turn they offered YOU nothing but hatred with their own rants. Do you not see? They are just the same as you."
"So what you are saying, oh wise one, is that this actually SUPPORTS your original argument that this book is weak? Because if the book had been better written, they would have taken away a valuable lesson from it and used it themselves?"
"Precisely."
"And if they dismissed the lesson, because they saw it of no value, then the book is equally as weak because it teaches a lesson not worth teaching."
"That's my boy. You've got it."
"And that they are blindly following a publication that could be somewhat seen as an authority that is not to be questioned ALSO, means that they have not paid any attention to the books morals."
"Ah, sure. More of an afterthought I guess, but why not hey?"
"I love you hubris."
"And I will always protect you my King."
Then they kissed. THE END.
Jack wrote: "First, Time magazine names it as the number 4 Young Adult book of all time. (They defined YA as ages 12 and up, so maybe I was wrong about reading it when I was 8. That was 35 years ago, so my dates could be a bit fuzzy.)"Pay no mind to today's age definitions; they are overly strict and skewed. I have no doubt you read it at 8. I read it at about 10. My elementary school had all three (that's how many there were at the time) in its library. By 12 I was on to Tolkien.
Then they kissed.Isn't that like incest, or something???
Maybe, I guess. But how could something that felt so right be wrong?
This could possibly be my problem too. I don't like bragging (although nobody will believe that), but I was a little precocious as well. I was reading by five, and by Grade One I was so far advanced that the teachers would walk me to the Grade Six classrooms to borrow books. Even these were too boring for me as I was knocking them over fast, but getting no joy from them. I couldn't tell you a single book on that list, due to the haziness of young childhood memory. I was reading Dirk Gently, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Lord of the Rings while everybody else was learning to read. I may not have understood all the concepts they put forward at the time, but I understood enough.So I guess I never really did YA fiction. Possibly this is why I didn't develop properly into an adult - because I never read about awkward kids worrying if their doodle is supposed to swing a bit to the right, or whatever those books discuss within. Now I will never know. Maybe this book IS worthy of 5 Stars, when compared to 'Sweet Valley High' or 'Babysitters Club'.
OH, the sarcasm beats me over like a feather. I am devastated by the polemics, stunned by the anger, defeated by your hubris, holy one, king of Michael J. Fox's sidekick in times gone by.I bow down before your eminent presence, cowed by your mightiness, magnanimity, and understanding of great literature. I am amazed by your worship of Judith Krantz, Jacqueline Susan, Frank Baum. your perspicacity, your superior intellect, your individualism in a nation that purports to value it but really lauds conformity.
Now THAT is how you do sarcasm. I like you Geoff, you may be angry, but you always seem quite level-headed and calm in your approach to things.
P.S. I was not being sarcastic.
You got a laugh out of me KSOTM.
Geoff, you'll be happy to know that one of your favourites, "Brothers Karamazov" is next up on my reading list. It wasn't going to be, but I've seen the book has been mentioned too many times in a positive light this week, and seeing it as number one on your list has been made my decision final.
Geoff, you'll be happy to know that one of your favourites, "Brothers Karamazov" is next up on my reading list. It wasn't going to be, but I've seen the book has been mentioned too many times in a positive light this week, and seeing it as number one on your list has been made my decision final.
Saying this is the worst book ever is sort of like saying that Hangover II is the worst movie ever -- I don't think that movie ever aspired to be great, so it's not really fair for it to be viewed as horrible either. A really truly horrible movie is one that holds itself out as being great, but really isn't, like Titanic or Star Wars Part I, or you get the picture. I think I was 7 when I read this and was intrigued by whatever was happening. I don't recall thinking it had any religious or political significance. Hating this book is sort of like the U.S. saying that Guam is our worst enemy. If you want to hate a book then Goldfinch by Donna Tartt is a much better choice--nearly 800 pages long, chopping down of thousands of trees, sells for more than $20.00, gets the Pulitzer Prize, and when you read it, it's like a poor Grisham novel (the ones where he doesn't write about law) with a pretty good intro and a good conclusion that needs severe editing like a person with diarrhea needs a toilet.
Haha - that my friend is the best argument I have heard in this book's defence to date. And it serves equally well to make me look like a chump without needing to mention it at all. Congratulations.
Nothing negative intended, to be sure, my friend KSoTM. If you're still planning on tackling Brothers Karamazov, I definitely encourage you to dive in, it's a wild and satisfying ride. I think we can all safely and comfortably agree that YA books like Wrinkle In Time are in a category of their own kind of off to the side and below books that are actually meaningful. Like when you rate movies the best romance like You've Got Mail or whatever doesn't compare to the best drama like Godfather or whatever. Saying Wrinkle In Time is a great book is sort of like Browns' fans saying they have the best football team in Cleveland. There's a hidden asterisk there that we are all to happy to acknowledge here which is that Wrinkle In Time is a great book when compared to other books that people under 10-12 might enjoy. But if you were pressured to read this as an adult, then you probably have been violated and have a good lawsuit on your hands.
And I'm so glad that you chose The Hangover II as your victim - I remember walking out of the cinema and thinking "WTF was that? That was just the same film again, but in Thailand." The third one redeemed the series a bit.
Is it safe to ask for a few quick thoughts about Atlas Shrugged in this thread, Mr Turd Mountain? I see you're currently reading it. I'm intrigued by the novel but mostly because people have such strong opinions about it. A friend once told me I should have started with Brothers Karamazov rather than Crime and Punishment.
Scott wrote: "I think we can all safely and comfortably agree that YA books like Wrinkle In Time are in a category of their own kind of off to the side and below books that are actually meaningful."I think you're doing a disservice to YA/children's fiction. Why can't they be "great" books? A lot of the ones coming out now may be shallow and trendy, but books like l'Engle's have stood the test of time.
message 137:
by
King Shit of Turd Mountain
(last edited Jan 12, 2015 04:37PM)
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Enchantingmonkey wrote: "Is it safe to ask for a few quick thoughts about Atlas Shrugged in this thread, Mr Turd Mountain? I see you're currently reading it. I'm intrigued by the novel but mostly because people have such..."I have sort of put this one on hold - I'm stuck just after Dagny has returned to society. I keep trying to go back to it, but it is just so damned dry. The thing about 'Atlas Shrugged' is that there are some absolutely outstanding paragraphs in there. Some of her political analogies are flawless. The trouble is, you have to read pages and pages of pure mundanity to find those gems. It is probably how prospectors feel; it's like back-breaking labor for a handful of diamonds.
Another flaw is that all her characters sound the same to me. They are all very matter-of fact and lifeless, but in saying that I have noticed a lot of these no-nonsense type characters in the works of many authors of the same era - so I can only assume it was a cultural peculiarity of the Cold War.
In saying this, I do not dislike the book, but I could not rate it 5 stars. I wholeheartedly agree with many of the arguments she puts forward, and the plot itself (so far) has been clever and interesting, however it is just not gripping enough to keep me engaged. Concepts are repeated and rephrased again and again until it feels as though she is forcing it down your throat, and as a result it loses something. I don't want to be preached to, I want to be tricked into thinking I came to these conclusions myself.
She does have some pretty elaborate set-ups though. The only reason the length works at all is of that "But there's a HOLE in my bucket, Delilah" level of satisfaction when the pay-offs finally arrives.
A little brevity and she would have won me. Cut the book down to a third/half of it's size, and it would be looking at 5 Stars. I don't know. I feel as though maybe I could, because the flaw may lay within my own short attention span. 4.5? I couldn't say for certain until I've finished it.
message 138:
by
King Shit of Turd Mountain
(last edited Jan 12, 2015 04:30PM)
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Scott wrote: "Scott wrote: "I think we can all safely and comfortably agree that YA books like Wrinkle In Time are in a category of their own kind of off to the side and below books that are actually meaningful...."My apologies, I did not mean to criticism YA fiction as a whole, but I can see how it looks as though I was.
I simply not well acquainted enough with the genre to understand what topics they may deal with. I only chose 'The Babysitter's Club' and 'Sweet Valley High' because to be honest they were the only two that popped into my head. I said the doodle thing because I was making myself a morning coffee and I had not yet bothered putting pants on. I'm sure there are some great books in there, just as there are great children's books - I mean I still love the works of Roald Dahl (I hate spelling that name), so I can understand, I've just never looked.
message 139:
by
King Shit of Turd Mountain
(last edited Jan 12, 2015 05:13PM)
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Oh geez - I just watched the trailer and a couple of shorts from the direct-to-DVD Disney adaptation of 'A Wrinkle in Time'. I hate to admit it, but it actually made me feel sorry for the book it looks that horrible.
Sorry. I think King Shit is being blamed for something I said when I criticized the YA group as a whole. I have learned a lot from children's books like Giving Tree or Goodnight Moon -- many have created lasting or even haunting & sorrowful memories. But I can honestly say that since turning 10 or so, I have never sought out a children's book or YA book as a source of inspiration of distraction or amusement or art or anything. I just would not look there, it's not for me, it doesn't appeal to me or grab me anymore. I have a child now and enjoy reading some of these same books to her and seeing her world and mind grow through the process and the books are great in that sense, but I view them I suppose as the beginning of a process and not the middle or end of it. Not trying to be mean or anything but it's kind of (in my mind) like saying someone is a great college football player or a great American soccer player when there are other challenges still ahead for that person at higher levels.
I have never claimed to be smarter than anybody else (despite some accusations to the contrary), but I get the feeling that this Scott guy is much smarter than me. Definitely wiser.Also, I discovered this today and thought it quite relevant:
“I haven't any right to criticize books, and I don't do it except when I hate them. I often want to criticize Jane Austen, but her books madden me so that I can't conceal my frenzy from the reader; and therefore I have to stop every time I begin. Every time I read Pride and Prejudice I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin-bone.”
- Mark Twain
Interesting comments, very polarized. Personally, I gave this book (indeed, all in the series) a five star rating, because I remember them fondly. I read the books as a teen at the same time I was reading Leon Uris, and enjoyed both authors' work. Growing up with several sisters, Meg seemed normal to me. I enjoyed learning the scientific theories behind the tessaract, and appreciated the religious themes behind the story. Good versus evil is my favorite plot line. And as a side note, neither good nor evil require a motive. Motives are for humans trying to rationalize their actions. Good and evil just ARE.
Sometimes I think I like YA fiction too much for my age. Aside from Hermann Hesse, I have yet to find an adult fiction author who motivates me to read more than one or two of his/her novels. Perhaps my inner child has more power over me than I realize. Thank you for your thoughts about Atlas Shrugged, Mr Mountain. I have a similar problem with a short-ish attention span, so it seems I shouldn't even bother starting another book I probably won't finish.
message 144:
by
King Shit of Turd Mountain
(last edited Jan 12, 2015 08:07PM)
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Peggy wrote: "Interesting comments, very polarized. Personally, I gave this book (indeed, all in the series) a five star rating, because I remember them fondly. I read the books as a teen at the same time I wa..."Mmmm... I would have to disagree to an extent. I understand that good and evil can exist as used as a social moral measure, but they do not exist without motivation. Maybe the motivation for evil is boredom, selfishness, greed, power, lust, jealousy or any number of things, and that those doing 'evil' deeds probably don't have a deep enough understanding of self to realize the consequences of their actions, but the only way you can have an 'evil' act without motivation is insanity. Even then, I would question it.
For example you wouldn't say that a lion killing a zebra is an act of evil, and would probably not crucify a pet cat that seemingly kills for fun, being that is simply instinct. If adversely we say that an 'evil' act can be one of instinct alone, then we have sort of taken free will away, in which case it couldn't really be considered 'evil' as such either - more of a pre-programmed act, whether by God or genetics or The Matrix or whatever reality is.
Another example - say I hit a young mother with my car because I do not see her until too late. This is potentially my fault, and perhaps I should have been paying closer attention, however I wouldn't necessarily say it was an act of 'evil'. However if I do see her and decide to hit her anyway, then this is an evil act. Maybe I had a bad day, maybe I am tired of living myself and want to take this pain out on others. It is 'evil' either way because it has motive. It doesn't necessarily mean that the motive is just of course.
Even if we are looking at the devil of the Christian Bible, he wasn't exactly without motivation for his 'evil' acts or his mutiny. They may have been unreasonable motives (jealousy and pride), but they were motives nonetheless.
For the sake of argument I will say Satan is real. If he somehow has full power over my actions and thoughts, they are no longer my actions as such, and so I personally could not be considered evil, as they are now his motives that drive whatever chaos my body causes when he is at the wheel.
If he influences me in some other more subtle way, it is still ultimately my choice to go down the 'evil' path that he has proposed, and as such we must examine my own personal motivations or mental health for acting them out.
I also appreciate good vs. evil battles in story, but I need more humanistic reasons for evil. And good too I suppose. Without that good/evil conflict things get a little boring.
My 11th grade English teacher said that darkness was not its own entity but the absence of light. In the Christian belief, one might say there's a source of light or good and the absence of that is evil, but of course in the Christian world it is also believed the the devil is also a force of evil, not simply one who lacks good characteristics. In the end maybe it doesn't matter too much; soon it's bedtime and I need to brush my teeth and go to sleep for I have a big day tomorrow and so the choices in front of me relate to whether to eat a snack before bed or not. Still, agency vs fate is perplexing to consider, as King Turd says if an external motivation moves me to act, perhaps I am less responsible than had I simply generated that motivation out of myself. On the other hand, if there are no outside motivators, it is hard to know why one person would desire evil more than another, except that perhaps that is hard-wired in our DNA in which case we can hardly be responsible for that either. In the end I have reached the conclusion that we do have some limited ability to act, but it's case dependent. I think there is free choice, but it's limited within a narrow range. Like right now I can keep typing or not but I can't shoot an arrow out of my arse or anything. I can't will myself into being Mother Theresa or Jesus and on the other extreme I don't have the desires inside of me of a Bundy or a Manson that I need to suppress either. I have a limited range of options pertaining let's say to Scott, and that's my little world. What is the version of Scott I will choose to be (I don't know, I'll find out in the future.) Anyway, I believe in love as a central power in the universe -- an actual force -- but I'm not sure I agree that good and evil are independent forces and would likely more align with King Turd in saying that each act has to be examined whether it's good or not and quite obviously that can become pretty difficult and then distinguishing between responsibility (what caused a consequence) vs accountability (moral responsibility) is almost always impossible. You know, I think I will have that bedtime snack.
You are on a roll Scott. I think ultimately it comes down to selfishness. Whether that is due to survival mechanisms we have not yet left behind or a desire for importance/meaning, I think that something can only be determined truly 'evil' if a conscious decision is made to act knowing that those actions will come at an unwelcome, undesirable and harmful cost to others.
message 147:
by
King Shit of Turd Mountain
(last edited Jan 12, 2015 11:30PM)
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Although when applying this logic with regards to cruelty to animals it falls into a pretty grey area. Even I, with my enormous hubris, would not claim that I could give an authoritative answer on this. I mean there are certain actions that would OBVIOUSLY fall under animal cruelty (and therefore evil) but when it comes to say killing them 'humanely' for food, I think the welfare of the animal falls into a particularly difficult category. I mean it is survival of the fittest at the end of the day, but I mean where is the line? If we don't need to kill them to survive as such, then is it still acceptable? At what level of consciousness do they exist, and as such feel suffering?And don't get me wrong, I love nothing more than a nice big blue steak and leather shoes, but I do question my own ethics on this one. Am I consciously, and unregrettably evil? Do I chose to ignore the potential suffering of animals for my own tastes, or am I so arrogant that I simply do not care whether that suffering exists or not. Again, selfishness at the end of the day really. But if I were struggling to stay alive in the jungle, not so much.
I couldn't picture myself existing in a world where I could possibly say "no" to that blue steak, even if I fundamentally knew that to eat it was evil. I don't believe in predestination, but I also don't want to believe that I am evil for actions that I cannot help but enjoy. If it came down to this scenario I would try my hardest to embrace a monotheistic religion so that I could blame the devil, because it is much easier than examining my own questionable morality.
King Shit -- this is a good area to apply the thinking and you are certainly right that it is hard to reach a satisfactory conclusion. To just torture an animal for no reason would seem to be evil in nature, subject of course to the caveat that why would one person inherently crave evil more than another, and would that be fair, or were they acting under the influence or direction of another, and if so, who is morally culpable. Setting that aside, eating animals for food or consumption that leads to pollution that harms animals or the environment -- they certainly seem to be regrettable and less than ideal, even though we constantly engage in those acts. Perhaps they are evil too, I don't know. It's takes a big heart and mind to try to absorb all the ambiguities of life and all the atrocities we daily commit. In Breaking Bad Walt White is famous for saying "better him than me" or "better him than us," with reference to why he chose to kill or harm someone else to protect himself or his people. The Road explores this theme too -- loving your child in a survival atmosphere may require protecting them at the expense of all else. I don't know the answer except that we need to have big hearts and big minds to try to deal with the world around us without being shattered.
I loved this trilogy as a child as well. It was so far out there and relatable to me as a outcast child that felt misunderstood by everyone and who lived in her fantastical, emotional imagination. The movie was hideous. If I'd had seen it first, it would have dampened my enjoyment of the books.
Lyssah wrote: "I loved this trilogy as a child as well. It was so far out there and relatable to me as a outcast child that felt misunderstood by everyone and who lived in her fantastical, emotional imagination. ..."When you say "hideous" do you mean "campy"?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Danny and the DreamWeaver (other topics)
The Book of Three (other topics)
The Borrowers (other topics)
The Carpet People (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
A Wrinkle in Time (other topics)Danny and the DreamWeaver (other topics)
The Book of Three (other topics)
The Borrowers (other topics)
The Carpet People (other topics)
More...
