This piece was done during an editing exercise in one of the modules I've selected and thought that I'd get people's views on it and consider expanding it into a short novella or something of that sort. Please read it and give feedback. I welcome all comments.
In the midst of the woods it stood in defiance of nature's attempt to rule the land. Trees had fallen around it like a medieval barricade and plants had sprouted up around the building. From a distance, it would have appeared ordinary. From this proximity, the tired and weathered look was obvious.
A mix of green and brown moss grew on the shackled roof and leaves cluttered the drain pipe. There were two broken, dirtied windows and several planks of wood led to the door and into the darkness where stairs would have once existed. It was impossible to see how far the building stretched into the darkness, only the moonlight reflecting on the front gave an indication of its existence.
Inside, metal and rusted chains hung from the wooden beams and rustled as you walked past. Paint cans and tools were all over the floor. Noises came from every corners, corners that had been claimed by spiders years ago. Their webs clung to the walls like a trapped beast making its last stand. It was dark but spots of light shone through the broken window.
Someone came outside. His expression screamed anger and pain, eyes darting into the darkness like a predator. His first few steps were timid before an air of confidence surrounded him. As he stepped into the moonlight, he revealed his grotesque and misshapen form. His hands shook violently and his body swayed and hunched. Noises startled him, making his head dart this way and that.
He stood there for a few seconds as if waiting for something...someone...a sign. He moved cautiously at first and then rushed from the building, darting through the trees. His eyes were wide and he shouted his joy as he stood examining one of his traps.
A woman's body lay in the decay of leaves and soil, her chest pierced with an arrow. He lifted the corspe onto his back and pulled the bloodied arrow from her chest, revealing the fatal wound before he rushed to his shed once more.
Thursday, 4 February 2010
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
The Importance of Music
All too often people ignore the cultural and social value of music. For most people, music is just a mode of expression. It's a means of procuring pleasure. I agree with that. Music is one of the most delightful developments of humankind and it brings pleasure to millions but music is so much more than pure pleasure. Music is like a drug and I'm addicted to it.
If we look through the ages, music has changed so much from the classical form of Beethoven, Wagner, Strauss and other important composers to the traditional operatic form that made 'Phantom of the Opera' famous and gave the Italians another reason to claim that their culture is of the highest pecking order. You can't disagree when it's done so much for the world.
Now, we have such variation in music that it seems wrong to judge people based on their musical tastes. I often hear people commenting on the value of one band over another, the frustration of one artist's music as opposed to another. This is not what music is about. Music is about freedom of expression and it is a right that we should be able to express ourselves through music.
I often discover new artists and I attempt to keep an open mind but I don't like all music forms. I will admit that I do judge some musics and have a preference to some artists to others but I am not going to force others to listen to that music. Some people like metal. Some people like pop. Some people like trance. That's good!
Would something replace music if it had not existed? Would literature have become more popular? Would there be some other form of expression, like art or design, be the favoured choice of people?
I don't know the answers to those questions but I do wonder what the world would be like without music. It gives us a reason to communicate and it is an excellent ice-breaker. Even if you don't like someone's music taste, you can talk to them about it. Not many people want to talk about the influence of Plato on modern thought or Ian McEwan's latest novel. Few people want to talk about architecture or art.
Music exists. Music is expression.
Remove yourself from the prejudice of judging other people for their music taste and embrace what is great about it. Opinion is one of the great dividers of this world: religion has damaged the world, don't let music do the same thing.
If we look through the ages, music has changed so much from the classical form of Beethoven, Wagner, Strauss and other important composers to the traditional operatic form that made 'Phantom of the Opera' famous and gave the Italians another reason to claim that their culture is of the highest pecking order. You can't disagree when it's done so much for the world.
Now, we have such variation in music that it seems wrong to judge people based on their musical tastes. I often hear people commenting on the value of one band over another, the frustration of one artist's music as opposed to another. This is not what music is about. Music is about freedom of expression and it is a right that we should be able to express ourselves through music.
I often discover new artists and I attempt to keep an open mind but I don't like all music forms. I will admit that I do judge some musics and have a preference to some artists to others but I am not going to force others to listen to that music. Some people like metal. Some people like pop. Some people like trance. That's good!
Would something replace music if it had not existed? Would literature have become more popular? Would there be some other form of expression, like art or design, be the favoured choice of people?
I don't know the answers to those questions but I do wonder what the world would be like without music. It gives us a reason to communicate and it is an excellent ice-breaker. Even if you don't like someone's music taste, you can talk to them about it. Not many people want to talk about the influence of Plato on modern thought or Ian McEwan's latest novel. Few people want to talk about architecture or art.
Music exists. Music is expression.
Remove yourself from the prejudice of judging other people for their music taste and embrace what is great about it. Opinion is one of the great dividers of this world: religion has damaged the world, don't let music do the same thing.
Friday, 29 January 2010
The Possibilities of Utopian Existence
It is often argued that the ideal existence is one in which we all hold equal views, have an equal existence and live in a world which has equality at the heart of its governance. Authors throughout the ages have written on such topics, thinking that it is important to consider the possibility of such a world. Some, like Plato's Republic or Sir Thomas More's Utopia, attempt to create an idyllic existence for the common man. Others, like George Orwell's 1984 or Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, highlight the inconvenience of a Utopian existence.
Modern audiences posit the existence of a world state which would protect the interests of the populace and, having given thought to this, there are a number of rational arguments which would suggest that this would not be possible. The first of these arguments is that we live in a world which has a diversification of views and opinions. These views are inherent in our thinking and, with each born child, those views are passed on. It would be impossible for one person to unite all those views into co-existence.
Religion has attempted to do it. It failed.
Language has attempted to do it. It failed.
Government has attempted to do it. It failed.
The second argument is that people have a pre-conceived idea of the perfect world. The argument, or even the possibility that we all have the same image of a perfect world, is open to strong criticism. Christians would support a theocratic world which placed God as the supreme head of our existence. Pantheists would support a democratic world which had a reverence for nature and the universe. Totalitarians would support a dictatorship which had a single man as its head of state.
The two arguments co-exist with one another to challenge the hope of a world state or a Utopian existence. Aldous Huxley suggests that, through a combination of techniques such as brain-washing, eugenics and manipulation, it is possible. George Orwell agrees but suggests other methods of control. Even where people agree, there are differences.
The closest that we have come to a world state or the co-habitation of states is the European Union or the United States of America. The two are accepted super-powers but it would be impossible to reconcile the two into a larger state. Consider the expanding dominance of China in trade markets or India and its ever-increasing population. A democratic state like America could not co-exist with a Communist state like China. The EU could not co-exist with an ever-expanding country like India if it hoped to maintain some structural integrity in terms of its trade and immigration policy.
What we have, therefore, is an ideal which is more a thought than it is a proposal. Sir Thomas More, rather than suggesting a world state that holds the same ideals, restricts the notion to a single geographical region. Again, one applies the arguments and thinks that it is difficult to reconcile the ideas with the actualities. It is considered even more difficult to comprehend when we see that the utopia in Sir Thomas More's novel was conquered by King Utopus, therefore previously having been run differently.
What Sir Thomas More does in his novel is to create the perfect conditions for a Utopia to exist: plentiful resources, a willing populace and the acceptance of a single perspective. Dictatorships have, in the past, achieved this in the past. Hitler created a utopia, but it was a utopia in his own image and, from the outside inwards, it appeared more like a dystopia. Hitler failed because he was not satisfied with his creation. He created a virus that is still remembered to this day.
Utopias are, at best, the fantasies of dissatisfied members of the general public. A utopia is created in our minds because we are not satisfied, because we desire change. Universal change is not possible and so we feel helpless. We construct an inward existence that is more to our needs. The world is not conditioned for a single communal existence. We are not conditioned for that.
Modern audiences posit the existence of a world state which would protect the interests of the populace and, having given thought to this, there are a number of rational arguments which would suggest that this would not be possible. The first of these arguments is that we live in a world which has a diversification of views and opinions. These views are inherent in our thinking and, with each born child, those views are passed on. It would be impossible for one person to unite all those views into co-existence.
Religion has attempted to do it. It failed.
Language has attempted to do it. It failed.
Government has attempted to do it. It failed.
The second argument is that people have a pre-conceived idea of the perfect world. The argument, or even the possibility that we all have the same image of a perfect world, is open to strong criticism. Christians would support a theocratic world which placed God as the supreme head of our existence. Pantheists would support a democratic world which had a reverence for nature and the universe. Totalitarians would support a dictatorship which had a single man as its head of state.
The two arguments co-exist with one another to challenge the hope of a world state or a Utopian existence. Aldous Huxley suggests that, through a combination of techniques such as brain-washing, eugenics and manipulation, it is possible. George Orwell agrees but suggests other methods of control. Even where people agree, there are differences.
The closest that we have come to a world state or the co-habitation of states is the European Union or the United States of America. The two are accepted super-powers but it would be impossible to reconcile the two into a larger state. Consider the expanding dominance of China in trade markets or India and its ever-increasing population. A democratic state like America could not co-exist with a Communist state like China. The EU could not co-exist with an ever-expanding country like India if it hoped to maintain some structural integrity in terms of its trade and immigration policy.
What we have, therefore, is an ideal which is more a thought than it is a proposal. Sir Thomas More, rather than suggesting a world state that holds the same ideals, restricts the notion to a single geographical region. Again, one applies the arguments and thinks that it is difficult to reconcile the ideas with the actualities. It is considered even more difficult to comprehend when we see that the utopia in Sir Thomas More's novel was conquered by King Utopus, therefore previously having been run differently.
What Sir Thomas More does in his novel is to create the perfect conditions for a Utopia to exist: plentiful resources, a willing populace and the acceptance of a single perspective. Dictatorships have, in the past, achieved this in the past. Hitler created a utopia, but it was a utopia in his own image and, from the outside inwards, it appeared more like a dystopia. Hitler failed because he was not satisfied with his creation. He created a virus that is still remembered to this day.
Utopias are, at best, the fantasies of dissatisfied members of the general public. A utopia is created in our minds because we are not satisfied, because we desire change. Universal change is not possible and so we feel helpless. We construct an inward existence that is more to our needs. The world is not conditioned for a single communal existence. We are not conditioned for that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)