The Faith Based Popularity Contest

Many things about Christianity are appealing to a large amount of people. This is obviously true for religion in general with the amount of conscripts each one of them has around the world. People have a tendency to want to believe in a higher power, a divine purpose, or just a philosophy that is greater then themselves. I think this is because people are afraid of walking alone in this world and desire the comfort of these greater ideas to see them through hard times. This can explain a bit as to why people follow religion but not really as to which religion is more appealing, or in the states where it applies, which Christian religion is more appealing. This I feel has more to do with social and economic factors and not so much with the general belief system.

What do I mean by social factors? Well it is common for most people to have a general herd mentality when issues come to a point of fear and/or personal safety. This herd type mentality comes into play when people choose a religion I think. A person does not want to be seen as an outcast, nor do they typically want to single themselves out for ridicule even if they know the ideas they are suggesting are right or true. This alone will help determine what religion people pick in society. If it is unpopular to be a Muslim, because of September 11^th, and a person has a greater chance of ridicule for being a Muslim then they will have the tendency to stray away from that religious path. This in reverse can help push an appealing religion.

If a person is in a community or society where the majority faith is Christian then simply for the reason of not being ridiculed they will choose Christianity, but this can delve further down. If your local environment ( town, city, subdivision ) pushes a certain faith these same pressures will apply to make a person want to join that faith. A community full of southern baptists will put pressure on a person who might be catholic and try to convert them over to their faith. And while this might not be done in an aggressive form like in ancient times, subconscious peer pressure will be applied. ( maybe even conscious pressure ) This form of pressure can be seen in society’s like Nazi Germany, where being of the state minded faith basically meant you stayed alive while pointing the finger of oppression at other religions. This is the perfect example of societal influences affecting Christian faith popularity.

In addition to social pressures, economic factors help divide faiths, and provide certain faiths popularity boosts. America is divided up economically, this can been seen by just driving through Tampa. In certain areas you see all well to do people, fancy houses and cars, and in other areas you find lower class or middle class people. This is because of housing costs in those areas and that people want to be around people that are like themselves. Now this doesn’t mean a rich guy cannot move into the bad part of town, it is just not common. Richer areas have ingrained faiths and value systems that apply to them. So as you move up the social ladder and mingle with different classes of people you will find different religious demographics.

It is common knowledge that many poor blacks are Baptists, Catholics are known for their support of the middle and working class, and the rich are Protestants or Jewish. Now this is of course based on broad stereotypes, but these stereotypes are their for a reason and that is because the people in these classes typically fit into that religious mold. How does this fit in with religious popularity? Well a growing poor class might mean a surge in the Baptist religion, where a shrinking middle or upper class will show a decrease in Catholic or Protestant religion. Many of these examples can be seen in todays society.

So which is the faith with greater appeal in todays age? Based strictly on the arguments above I would say it would be a faith that has a growing economic segment ( probably poor to lower middle class in todays society ) such as Southern Baptist, or Evangelical Faiths ( these as stated above cater to the poorer class ) these also have a large peer influence because of their growing stature. This growing stature also means a greater degree of pressure on society to believe in what they preach and believe. ( more political and local social power ). Now of course there are exceptions and this is broadly based, but it seems that it is generally true.

The New Testament & The Trappings of Doctrine

The idea in modern society of believing in Jesus Christ will get you into heaven is a faulty one. The teachings of Jesus I feel are ideals that one should try to live up to, but it seems that most people instead of trying to understand their Christian faith and ideals simply follow a well laid out path ( of whatever their particular church preaches ) to salvation. This in my opinion is a slap in the face to real religious people who seek knowledge and love.

I have seen it many times, a person who attends church on Sundays and walks around preaching right and wrong, explaining the 10 commandments to you, and talking about what their preacher says, but then this same person will do whatever they want without following the teachings themselves. For instance, almost everyone in this country claims to be Christian but then many of them join the military which as we know would require them to kill somebody. I don’t think you can go against the teachings of thou shall not kill simply because of your religion is preaching it is the right thing to do. Country has no sway over the word of god, at least in my opinion.

It seems that the teachings of Jesus have actually been lost to many Christians and replaced with book worship, and misinterpretations of the words within the bible. The kingdom of God is here, love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek. These are all great teachings but they are not taken to heart by most. Many think its just to hard to turn the other cheek in todays society, or they think that they can do what they want because on Sunday the lord will forgive them. I think this problem exists because of organized religion. Once religion became an entity unto itself and not an ideal for living it had a need to survive. This need to survive meant in ancient times perhaps speaking the mass in Latin so the peasants couldnt understand and the religious leaders who use this mysterious language to be the keepers of religion. Or perhaps it was keeping sacred texts out of the hands of every day folk ( the Vatican still has many secret texts in its library ), this being done so only they could interpret the word of god. This allows the keepers of the knowledge to hold sway over the meanings of the words of god and of course the doctrine. Keep the doctrine keep the faith. I feel that many these days worship the idea of religion and do not actually understand their religion or study the teachings of Jesus themselves.

So in closing of this section, I feel it is utterly necessary to be a mystic and extend love to others regardless of class, religion, skin color, or creed. These are the true meanings of the words of Jesus, it was never meant to be this ‘God is on our side’ attitude that almost everyone has today. To read within and expand your personal temple ( within you ) is the idea that I think Jesus wanted to convey. Grow yourself and become a better person to the people around you and they will hopefully do the same.

What was the best lesson of the semester?

I really enjoyed reading about Hinduism as I felt the ideas were very nourishing and open compared to the religious ideas I get from most Americans today. I felt the ideas of the stages of life were actually very logical and I can see how I have gone through some of these stages myself. The stations of life I felt though were an extreme form of what religion should hope to eliminate. These were probably put in place through misinterpretations of their religious teachings and pushed by upper class people of the time. ( the rich always enjoy keeping the poor in line ) And perhaps the poor caste accepted it better since they would not be punished as badly for crime, or if they though “Hey I am moving up the ladder”.

I found the ideas of Buddhism and Confucianism to be extremely foreign to the ideals I was raised with and therefor quite difficult to comprehend. I also felt that perhaps the book did not do such a good job in explaining these ideas very well. I would perhaps like to see a different order in the studies, like starting in christianity and moving into muslim then the eastern religions as this might help people get a better grasp of where the class should take them mentally. It would also offer something familiar to start with as jumping into Confucianism so quick was quite foreign ( even after reading about hinduism ). I will definitely take the Hinduism ideas with me as I continue on my journey, and have already discussed many of the ideas with co-workers I have that are Indian.

I often have wondered about the true meaning of the Christian bible and of belief systems oriented around it. Interested in a sense of what the ideas really mean or represent. Does the bible really mean to say that there is a physical godlike being, or are the stories and lessons contained within it just allegorical tales on how to live. I tend to lean towards the idea that these are concepts on living that provide illumination of thought, but this illumination itself has another idea, one that might pertain to idea Lucifer.

Whatever you want to call him, Satan, Old Scratch, Nick, Lucifer this figure plays an important part in the Christian faith. While there is much debate as to whether Lucifer is truly identified as Satan himself in biblical texts, for this paper we will assume the general Christian belief that Lucifer and Satan are one and the same. Lets first start off with who Lucifer is and what he represents to modern Christianity, discover what he represents to followers of the left handed path, and learn about modern observations of Lucifer.

Satan as interpreted today by many Christians is another name for Lucifer. Lucifer is mentioned many times in the bible and currently is held to be the one told in Adam and Eve as the serpent, and later as the great dragon in the Book of Revelations. Lucifer is also known as the one who fell from heaven because in his pride he refused to bow to God. He was considered the highest of all angels and wanted to rule heaven himself until God cast him out to and he took up rule of the Earth ( “the god of this world.” (2Cor. 4:4)

Lucifer spends his time trying to corrupt people away from god. He is identified as the tempter in the story of Job, and as mentioned above was the snake in Adam and Eve. He tempts to pull people away from following the word of the lord. His name in Islam is Shaitan and this equivalent means ‘astray’, in the sense that Lucifer makes a person who is with the lord go astray from that path and into darkness or evil. Most modern Christian sects believe this idea to be true and can be seen in many aspects of todays culture.

Anytime Lucifer is portrayed in modern television, or depicted in a religious pamphlet he is depicted typically as a red horned beast tempting the righteous into sin and oblivion. Sometimes he will bear the mark 666 on his body somewhere like in the movie ‘The Omen’. He is usually moving about causing great harm to people, murdering, causing animals to go crazy and generally being a bad guy. Religious pamphlets and Sunday morning preachers on television always talk about him as the ultimate bad guy, tempting young children into drugs, girls in to pre-marital sex, and other wanton acts of self destruction.

This though does not really fit with his name, as he is considered the light bearer, the light of the morning. Perhaps this is in relation to his name which in ancient times Lucifer represented the planet Venus, or perhaps it is in relation to the fact the Lucifer actually leads one into light of self illumination. This self illumination being knowledge ( forbidden or not ) that God did not want Adam and Eve to have in the garden of eden. But how does this idea move into what are considered the darker sides of religion or fraternal organizations?

The Knights Templar were considered one of the earlier and most famous orders of holy knights that possessed a secret knowledge. This secret knowledge was thought to have been what corrupted the knights away from their holy beginnings as the poor soldiers of Christ and the temple of Solomon. As they gained in power and holdings, they also supposedly grew in their possession of secret knowledge of the mysteries of the bible and of ancient biblical relics. These secrets are what brought the knights downfall around 1307 when King Phillip the Fair ordered most of the order arrested and tortured for apparently worshiping a deity closely resembling Lucifer named Baphomet. Were the Templar knights worshipping a deity for purposes of evil, or was Baphomet another name for Lucifer and a keeper of hidden knowledge?

The left handed path ( in direct opposition to the right handed path, such as in the saying ‘the right hand of God’ ) is commonly referred to as Satanism. It is referred to this way mainly because it is the opposite of Christianity. Christianity being a right handed path is fraught with rules, biblical and moral concepts as well as the belief in a deity, the left handed path is considered immoral and evil. Its followers however denounce the evil-ness of their chosen path because the left handed path puts responsibility on the individual and not in ancient dogma perpetuated by an organized religion. Most followers of the left handed path also do not worship any kind of deity ( Satan ), but rather believe in self and personal responsibility. ( What is interesting though is more and more modern theologians are stressing the fact that Satan is not a physical being, this goes well against common ingrained tradition of many sects of Christianity and is leaning to more esoteric concept of evil.)

This belief in self and this personal responsibility is translated esoterically as the concept of having ones own knowledge, or being illuminated as many fraternal organizations put it. This illumination concept I feel comes directly from the concepts of Lucifer as the light bearer. While the right handed path wants its followers to believe and follow a well trodden laid out path, the left handed path wants its followers to use knowledge to forge their own path. This puts the two ideas or religions if you will at direct odds with one another and with Christianity being the dominant force throughout the ages, it is easy to see why one demonizes the other ( literally). But perhaps in earlier times before many Christian sects turned into powerhouses, their ideas of god and the bible were illuminating to an oppressed people, this is another question to explore.

It is very easy to track Lucifer or Satan as a literal being in the bible, a few stories mention him or a being like him or a force. But should the bible be read literally like this, could this Luciferian force be just an idea for thoughts or knowledge that is different then what is portrayed in biblical holy texts? As stated above I have often wondered about how the bible should be read and how the idea of hidden knowledge might be represented in the concept of Lucifer. While I do not feel I have really had the opportunity to explore this concept to its fullest, I think this paper has given me time to look at a few cults, religions, and concepts that I might not have looked at but I need to definitely explore these ideas further without as many time constraints in a short class. I am pleased with my outcome of readings on the web and in the bible, but feel this topic needs to be extensively examined.

Joseph Murphy

Sat/Sun World Religions

Take Home Test 1

813-451-2985

Question 1.

- religion at its best

I feel religion is at its best when it helps people move forward in their lives. Helping a person to establish personal goals and boundaries that fit with their own moral standards. While religion or the belief in deity is perhaps in itself not required, the package of most religion is to provide a belief system for each person. This typically encompasses rules and/or advice to live by that is put in place to basically make a persons life better. For instance, ‘do not steal’ is a common rule in many religions, ‘do not kill another human’ as well. These moral standards are put in place by religion to help a person define their boundaries and also have a clue as what to expect from other people. I feel that rules like these make religion worthwhile as they help establish a general code of conduct for society and within this code people can feel comfortable enough to advance their own personal goals and beliefs.

- religion not so good

This same rule system of religion also can have a negative effect on people when taken to extremes or followed blindly. In a closed society or a overly patriotic society people can have a tendency to feel that ‘god is on their side’, such as in the United States today. This patriotic rhetoric about god being on the side of one country is just ridiculous and unfortunately perpetuates racist and overbearing views towards other peoples and cultures. This perfect example is in great effect today with the way most Americans feel and think about Muslims. I think this zeal that Americans are gods chosen people is utterly crazy especially if you take the modern Christian gospel itself into account which never even mentions Americans as gods anything. Todays patriotic Christian right is a great example of when religion might not be so good.

- what does it mean to be religious

Religion definitely means different things to different people. To some like Catholics, it means upholding an ancient belief system full of the mystery’s of the mass and the saints. To others like Muslims it can mean being fervently faithful and praying to Mecca. One thing that does hold all truly religious people together is the idea of faith. Faith, to believe in something beyond what you know or can prove. Faith holds all religions together no matter what their doctrine states. Perhaps some do not eat pork, perhaps some believe Haile Selassie is the lord reincarnate, but all hold in the fact that they belief in a higher purpose, spirit, lord or power that cannot be scientifically proved. I think this ability to have utter faith in the unknown to guide you is what it truly means to be religious.

- is being religious good, necessary or unnecessary & is it necessary to be part of a particular religion

I think being religious can be good and bad as mentioned in the questions above. It is good if a person uses the ideals of their faith to further themselves and their goals without hurting other people, and it can be for the opposite reasons. If it is necessary I do not know for sure, but I think that in a sense religion will always be around. Perhaps not in the robe wearing bible tapping sense. But the concept of a higher good and belief in goals and ones friends and family will always be here. Does this mean we need priests or ancient books to tell us what is right and wrong? I do not think so, humanity itself dictates moral standards of the times. Therefore as an institution religion is unnecessary but being religious about your ideals and following them is good and definitely necessary.

This being said I feel it not really a requirement to be part of any particular religion itself. I mean if you feel an avid and ideological connection with people who share your same value systems, do you really need to have the shell of and organization tied around it? Free expression of beliefs and the ability to follow them is brought up from yourself, not from the trappings of a doctrine put in place sometimes thousands of years ago. Being able to have faith in yourself and your ideals is religion enough, I think a person does not need a priest to explain value systems to them. Express your beliefs with people who have like beliefs and operate in mutual respect and admiration of one another because you truly enjoy that person, do not do so because an ancient book tells you its not right to hate them. These ideals of respect and living together are religious in nature but actually are fundamentals of mankind and have been in place since the dawn of time. So being a certain religion is not necessary but having some good common belief systems is.

- what is the best lesson derived from Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism? At what points might they be somewhat problematic?

Hinduism is a very interesting religion. I feel it is one of the more interesting ones perhaps because it is so different in aspects to the Christian belief system I was raised with. I really like the concept that every person has his place and has the ability to move up to the next level in the caste system, eventually reaching the top. While this could also have just been put in place to hold he masses in order for the ruling elite, it still gives a sense that the spirit of their religion is in each person. Everyone can reach the peak and attain the knowledge and become one with knowledge of everything. I also found the stages of life quite interesting in the fact that it really sort of follows how people develop over time. Even in this country equivalents to the Hindu stages can be seen in people as they move through life. Being young we experiment, then we attend school, get married, care for the family, and then retire and seek knowledge. It is nice to see general life put into the concept of how one lives with religion. I also found their aspect of more or less open sexuality to be much more interesting than the puritan ethic that is pushed in America. It seems to make more sense to be open about sex as a passion then to repress it as something vile and dirty. Problems arising from Hinduism though have to do with the stations of life, as they hold a person to a fate no matter what. This is a bad thing, as it means if you are poor you stay poor, if you are a laborer you stay a laborer, and the excuse that ‘well in the next life you will move up’ just doesn’t seem to help.

While the stages of of life allow for people to move through their lives with purpose, the stations of life give everyone a chance to attain a higher purpose. In Buddhism this is totally switched around. Buddhism allows everyone to wake up without having to go through stages to attain knowledge. These stations of life perhaps influenced Buddha greatly when he rode his carriage through the streets and saw the downtrodden and plague ridden people. He in a sense realized, why do we have to suffer now? We can all attain this knowledge, without moving through stations. But while denying the stations he did follow basic Hindu systems of yoga and meditation to achieve his ends. This ability to achieve knowledge and nirvana by anyone is a great concept, but the path to the reaching this level is a hard one. Denial of the basics, while not a requirement seems to be necessary to archive nirvana. Deny need as it is not really needed. You can drink the wine, but why, that is not existence. In the modern world following the path of the Buddha just doesn’t fit with most modern lifestyles.

Confucianism seems to fill in the gaps of Buddhism and Hinduism to me. It provides a societal stance on the basics of enlightenment. These basics are models to live by ( just like other religions ) and are put together in sayings and stories that have been passed on among the tradition for many years. Confucianism really stresses the human side of things as opposed to the other wordly aspect. And is often not thought of as a religion at all but like I stated above, models to live by. Things like a ruler cannot rule without the consent of the people. This means a leader must prove himself worthy and then he will enjoy the support of his people, you cannot rule with force alone. It allows for furthering oneself through martial and mental action like Buddhism and Hinduism but its basic tenants are more fundamental in nature and are more like lessons to live by. I think what is bad about Confucianism is that while it has many good lessons to live by, it is constraining in that its tenants are really based on ancient society and while some of the lessons can be universally applied, others cannot. It is also an idea based on a previous more harmonious version of Chinese history and designed to uphold tradition rather than bring a young population into the future.

TERMS

Brahman – This is the state of being in Hinduism that is the final attainable state. It can be called nirvana, the supreme reality, and even the godhead. This is not to be confused with a caste in Indian society that is at the top level, brahmin. It is thought that this can be achieved through meditation and study.

Caste – Part of the stations of life, there are many castes in Indian culture and up until recently one stayed in ones caste for their entire life. There are Brahmin, the wise men and seers, they are the thinkers and the rulers. Other castes include laborers and unskilled workers at the bottom level. Each caste has its specific duty and level of punishment in society based on the level or responsibility the caste has. For the lower levels lesser punishments are given as these people are thought of as less intelligent and therefor given more freedom.

Krishan – This the the main deity of Hinduism according to the Bhagavad Gita and was a warrior and a teacher. His lessons can be found in many of the Indian texts. He can also be found in many other religions such as Buddhism and even Thelema studies of Aleister Crowley.

Arhat – Is a person who has achieved enlightenment and has a lack of desire because he has infinite knowledge. Buddha was asked if one who has attained this continues to exist. But in an excellent Buddhist response Buddha states its pointless to think about it as no terms can apply to arhat.

Koans – Is a problem or statement that forces you to think outside the box, forces the mind to a state of agitation by the illogical nature of the statemnet. Its intent is just that to force a monk to think on something to the point of exhaustion.

Satori – This is what comes about from a monks koan. This is when the rational removes itself and the monk is suddenly hit with spiritual insight and answer to his koan. It can take many years or can come about in a sudden burst of knowledge and it sheds a new light on everything.

Jen – This is the perfect state of two-ness. It can be translated as man-to-man-ness. Benevolence and love between two human beings and was thought of as the highest virtue in Confucianism. All men are brothers, we are all one person. Confucius stated he had never seen anyone attain this fully.

Chun-Tzu – This is the ‘perfect hostess’. Some at one with everything around, so much so that that can put others and instant ease by giving them their full attention. Of these type of people Confucius thought civilization should be built because of their beauty in character.

Wen – These are ‘the arts of peace’. Music poetry and painting. Confucius thought that the arts empowered humans and he did not necessarily care for the product of the arts but how it built people. He also thought the arts were good because countries with the highest cultural state often were the victors in situations with other countries.

Myself : Whitman
Joseph Murphy

Poetry is the medium of an emotional and intelligent person. A person who is not afraid to show there loves and fears. Walt Whitman was a man such as this. Never afraid to put his feelings on paper and expose himself, Whitman”s style was truly unique to his time. In his poetry, Whitman used his poetic style of free verse, personal involvement, and language to establish a presentation of what it is to be an American.

Traditional European poetry typically has some form of rhyme scheme. Whitman was one of the first to develop the free verse style of poetry. Letting his words form a line that flows off the tongue. “I chant the chant of dilation or pride” ( Whitman 790 ). The line itself although not rhyming with the next forms its own pattern and rhythm with its syllables and form. This rhythmic wording which is best heard when read aloud, is typical of Whitman”s poetry. This new sort of rhythm “was crucial in the development of twentieth century American poets” ( Mack 791 ). Another aspect of Whitman”s poetry is his personal involvement in the verse.

When reading poems, the aspect is typically third person; the reader is watching the poem happen. For example in this line from “Leda and the Swan”

“By the dark webs her nape is caught in his bill, He holds her helpless breast upon his breast” ( Yeats 1455 ). The reader is watching what is happening, in Whitman”s verse Whitman himself is narrating, involving himself and the reader in the story. “And what I assume you shall assume” ( Whitman 791 ). Whitman is always using himself as the eye to see his verse through. “Walt Whitman in his poetry makes himself the center of the universe” ( Mack 789 ). This style was new to the literary world at that time, as was Whitman”s use of language.

Poet”s in Europe during the 1800”s were romantic in nature and tended to use large eloquent and often flowery language. Whitman on the other hand tended to use words that were “in a sense familiar to the reader of that time” ( Mack 790 ). Often European poets like Wordsworth tended to separate themselves from their readers with language that some could not identify with. While Whitman identifies with a large number of the American people with his choice of words.

Whitman had an immense effect on American poetry and literature. His work and style are still being studied and enjoyed today. Whitman”s use of free verse helped set American style. His personal involvement brought the reader into the work, and his use of language helped to identify him as a poet and as an American.

Hunter S. Thompson
Joe Muprhy

People have defined the American dream in many different ways. This dream is always changing depending on the viewpoint of the person seeking it. Hunter S. Thompson has made his attempt at finding this elusive dream in his work Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas. While the work has an in depth story line which weaves in and out of the hotels and streets of Las Vegas, the main theme is the self evaluation of the American dream through the narrator ”Raoul Duke” who is a caricature of the author Thompson.

For Thompson”s compatriots the drug crazed main character of his work Fear And Loathing wasn”t much of a shocker. Thompson is known for his own binges with narcotics and is also a heavy drinker. The work was defined as “A vile epitaph for the 60”s” ( Marin 94 ) culture and helped bring in the 70”s. This is probably best summed up by the title of the work. Fear, or fear of what is to come in the next decade, and loathing, loathing the burnt out times of the 60”s. Thompson gained national attention with this work and brought “Gonzo Journalism”, or journalism focusing on getting involved in events, into the mainstream. Thompson has many works of merit and spends most of his time reclusively on his farm in Woody Creek, Colorado sending off “crazed and often hilarious faxes” ( Marin 95 ). Thompson”s reclusive style and drinking binges are easily seen in the personalities of his main characters.

Raoul Duke, the main character and narrator of Fear And Loathing can be seen as a mirror image of Thompson himself. The character uses drugs and alcohol to an extreme in an attempt to escape from his life as a journalist. He is also frequently going off on a paranoid trip about all those around him. This is restated in a critique of the work done by John Hellmann. “Thompson”s self-caricature is a paradox of compulsive violence and outraged innocence, an emblem of the author”s schizophrenic view of America.” ( Hellman 66 ). What this means is that Thompson put himself on paper literally, not just his feelings and ideas. It was Thompson himself blasting through the narration, taking the drugs, and tripping out for the reader throughout Fear And Loathing” pages. This style of writing was cutting edge at the beginning of the 1970”s when the work was first published in “Rolling Stone” magazine, and is still being debated today concerning its merit.

The main problem many critic”s have with Thompson”s work is not the work itself, but Thompson”s use of drugs and counter culture in his work. Thompson started out as a sports journalist, covering the college scene in Florida. It is unconventional for a journalist to get major coverage and applause as a fiction author, but Thompson did it. His journalistic style is quite evident with his in your face descriptions like the opening of the book.

“We had two bags of grass, 75 pellets of mescaline, five sheets of acid, a salt shake of cocaine, and a whole galaxy of uppers, downers, laughers and screamers…” ( Thomspon 4 )

The reader immediately knows the depth of drug use that will be going on because of his descriptive use. His descriptive journalistic style is often discredited because of its content; this can be seen in a critique by Joseph Nocera. “More than anyone else, Thompson has damaged and discredited fiction and journalism”s promise” ( Nocera 44 ). This cheap shot at the style of Thompson in my opinion is just a cheap shot at the 60”s counter culture movement and it”s ideals through the eyes of a conservative critic. Raoul Duke”s use of drugs was the 60”s drug culture defined, there is nothing discrediting about that. The main character”s trip to Vegas and his perceptions of Vegas are Thompson”s search for the American dream, the main theme of the work.

The setting of Las Vegas is a good one for a 60”s counter culture journalist. Where else can a person examine all that is decrepit in the country. A city in a desert, it cannot survive without man, or man”s greed. Las Vegas with its bright lights, gambling, prostitution, and get rich quick lifestyle is Thompson”s idea of an American dream gone bad. As stated by John Hellman, “Las Vegas is Thompson”s idea of artificiality.” ( Hellman 66 ) While the main character is here working on a story, he is constantly hallucinating from the drugs he has taken. He is constantly seeing people as lizards eating each other. This is referring to the predatory nature of Americans, especially as seen in Vegas casinos. This escapism through drug use by the works main character is repeated over and over throughout the work. This is actually what helps the main character discover what the American dream means to him. This drug escapism in my opinion is another example of Americans wish to just forget problems and have a good time. Thompson”s main character is downing the lifestyle of the typical Las Vegas loving American but instead of trying to change it, does nothing but serve his own interest and takes more drugs. This is one of the subtle ironic points made by the book.

A 60”s gonzo journalist, takes a trip to Vegas to do a report. The journalist analyzes the inefficiencies of American culture on the way and while there. The only problem is that he is on a drug binge that alters his perceptions. It is this character”s drug binge that is another example of American hypocrisy and is totally ironic. The character is their searching for the American dream and not liking the mainstream culture he finds. The reality that he is just as much a part of the American dream totally eludes the main character throughout the work, and is classic irony. This perhaps was unintentional on the authors part as he was trying to write the work from a counter culture standpoint and couldn”t see his main character as part of the American dream.

Perhaps the American dream is all too personal for Thompson and this work. Many critic”s see Fear And Loathing not as a work of literary art, but more as a shameless tool for self promotion by Thompson. By caricaturing himself with the story”s main character Thompson was attempting to turn himself into a drug legend and increase profits from his writings. This was stated best by John Hellman who said “Thompson creates Fantasies which record his spirit” or “Thompson Multiplies himself” ( Nocera 44 ) referring to Thompson”s tendency to exaggerate reality. Whether or not Thompson was using his main character as a self promotion tool doesn”t seem to matter. Thompson successfully explored the depths of 60”s drug depravity with the overindulgence of Raoul Duke, and delved into the madness of the so called ”straight” world of the American dream in corrupt Las Vegas. This work is a must read for anyone with an interest in literature and is considered a modern classic by many. This can be seen by the year 2000”s aniversary re-printing and distribution of Fear And Loathing.

Things Fall Apart
Joseph Murphy

The novel Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe is a story with hidden meanings. The general literary premise behind the tale is that the main character, Okonkwo has a tragic flaw that leads to his downfall. But, the story Things Fall Apart, “was a conscious attempt to counteract the distortions of Joyce Cary”s Mister Johnson” which portrayed Africans as being uncivilized and savage. The work is looked upon as a great literary achievement by many readers. But the nature of the tribal lifestyle, especially with it”s treatment of women, is still looked upon as savage by some modern readers.

Modern civilization has developed many tenants that are thought to be absolute and correct. One of these is the idea that men and woman are of equal social status. This is obviously not the case in the villages of Umofia. One of the first signs of this inequality is when Okonkwo”s wife is questioning him about Imekfuna, a prisoner from another village. “Do what you are told woman” ( Achebe, 2103 ) Okonkwo yells at her. It is obviously not her place to question what is happening with the boy Imekfuna. Readers from a modern society such as the United States, would never speak to a woman this way. Another aspect depicting the savage nature of Okonkwo”s existence is the violence towards children.

In America it is a crime to beat on ones”s spouse or child, but this was not the case in the villages of Umofia. After Imekfuna is brought to live with Okonkwo, the first week he refuses to eat. Okonkwo decides to make him eat, “Okonkwo came into the hut with a tick and stood over Imekfuna while he swallowed his yams” ( Achebe, 2109 ). Beating a child with a stick these days would be considered child abuse and probably land a person in jail. The same violence comes from Okonkwo towards his wives later in the story.

Okonkwo has more than one wife and one, Ojiugo his second wife, has gone off to get her hair plaited. This is during what is called The Week Of Peace. A time when violence is not supposed to take place or the tribal gods will be angry. Okonkwo discovers his second wife is not around during dinner when she is supposed to bring him his plate. Okonkwo gets very angry. “when she returned he beat her very heavily”, “his other wives ran out pleading in great alarm” ( Achebe, 2110 ) for Okonkwo to stop. They were not upset at the beating but were upset that the beating took place during this sacred week. This savage act would also land a person in jail today.

The literary accomplishment of Achebe is not being argued. The savage nature of Okonkwo is the character”s tragic flaw. But the purpose of displaying the African tribal system as not being savage has failed. It is agreed that there was a rich social system in the tribes of Umofia, but for modern man to look on that system as not savage is nearly impossible. The treatment of women as objects and children as possessions is practically unheard of in modern times. Perhaps in some ways Joyce Cary was right.

This paper is written in direct response to the discussion we had in class. It does not reflect my personal opinion on the nature of tribal life. I found it interesting that the author wanted the reader to NOT view his culture as savage, but all we could talk about in class was the savage nature of it. Anyways, I hope you get my meaning.

Conveyance Of Theme In “No One”s A Mystery”
Joseph Murphy

The theme of a story is its major element, the voice, the way the story portrays its main idea. Theme is made up of character, plot, and setting with its main elements being reinforced by experiences the reader has had in his or her life. A hero story such as Gilgamesh might be a fantasy tale to most modern readers, but to readers of older cultures it was a tale reinforcing religious and social values. No One”s A Mystery reinforces our cultural values of adultery and underage sex by using strong images and wording to play on our modern cultures negative view of these things.

No One”s A Mystery puts the reader into the negative theme immediately. When Jack, a main character, notices his wife”s car coming up the road the narrator states “He pushed me down onto the dirty floor of the pickup” ( Tallent, 6 ). This scene of the narrator, an 18 year old, involved in adultery with an older man is emotionally deep. The action of Jack pushing the girl down brings up anger in a person. This is exactly the response the author wanted, and she reinforces it by describing the scene even more. Jack “kept one hand on my head while I inhaled the musk of his cigarettes in the dashboard ashtray” ( Tallent, 6 ). The setting reinforces the theme again later in the story by stressing how young the narrator is.

The narrator goes further by telling jack about the hundreds of pop tops that are on the floor of his pickup, and says “Some little kid could cut a bare foot on one of these” ( Tallent, 6 ). Her lover, Jack replies, “No little kids get into this truck except for you” ( Tallent,7 ). This statement is meant not only to display the narrators youth, but also meant to incite the readers emotions again by purposely stressing her youth. In twentieth century American society an older man is looked down upon for dating such a young girl and can even be charged with rape. The image of her youth and innocence is played upon even further in the next section of the story.

The narrator is given a diary by Jack, her lover for her eighteenth birthday. This tells the reader that the relationship has been going on before the girl was of legal age. The girls” youth and innocence is played upon when Jack starts talking about the diary. “Tonight you”ll write, ”I love Jack”” ( Tallent, 7 ). Then he continues, “In a year you”ll write, ”I wonder what I ever saw in Jack”” ( Tallent, 7 ). The narrator counters to the contrary she will always love Jack. This exchange has some hidden meanings. The author is trying to show the reader that Jack knows they will not be together a year from then. The author is also trying to show the innocence and naivete of the girl in comparison to the knowledge of Jack. This diary encounter again brings out an emotional response in the reader by its imagery.

The visual and verbal images of this work are the key elements. The characters are not round characters but rather flat and stereotypical as the title No One”s A Mystery suggests. But the way the characters are used, the straightforwardness of language and setting are meant to bring the reader to an emotional edge. The filthiness of the truck, the youth of the narrator, and the exchange between Jack and the girl over the diary help to reinforce the negative emotional response that the author was looking for.

Comparison Contrast
Joseph Murphy

When critiquing literature the obvious similarities between stories often hold deeper meaning. What seems like a simple common story element, like the mothers in “Fenstad”s Mother”, and “Everything That Rises Must Converge”, are really just the beginning of deep similarities in theme and tone between these two works. Each story uses the differences between mother and son relations to set the tone and theme but the characters and their viewpoints are almost exact opposites.

In the work “Fenstad”s Mother” the reader gets the sense that the main character doesn”t agree with his mother”s viewpoint. This is shown in the very beginning when the narration states in a negative context, “She had spent her life in the company of rebels and deviationists.” ( Fenstads Mother, 117 ). Fenstad is more of a normal guy not a rebel like his mother. Fenstad attends church while his mother does not; Fenstad”s mother is a social progressive while Fenstad is more conservative. Throughout the work, the reader gets the feeling that Fenstad is disappointed in his mother”s actions or perhaps disappointed in her perspective of the world because of these differences between them.

In the work “Everything That Rises….” the reader is immediately shown the difference in viewpoints between the son and the mother. “She would not ride the buses by herself since they had been integrated” ( Everything.., 393 ) This is in contrast to the main characters viewpoint when later in the work he states his feeling that he must sit next to a black person on the bus in a sort of penance to his mothers racist attitudes. The mother is racist by birth almost, raised in the way of the old south. She doesn”t like the breakdown of the old racist traditions or the breakdown of social class. The son, on the other hand, is open-minded and feels that racism is wrong and so is the arrogance of thinking oneself upper class.

In both works the story centers on the differences in viewpoint between mother and son. The major difference in the two works is that the main character roles are reversed. In “Fenstad”s Mother” the mother is the liberal minded one and the son the conservative while this role is different in “Everything That Rises..” where the son is the liberal and the mother the conservative. During each story the main characters struggle with their mother”s view of the world and how it differs from theirs. This struggle comes to a climax when one main character has to deal with his mother”s death, and the other Fenstad has to deal with his mother”s sickness. Both characters realize what they will be missing by having their mother”s gone. This is perhaps the biggest similarity in both works. The son”s having to deal with their hidden feelings of their mothers.

While each work has a different setting, characters, and story line, the main theme and tone are the same. Each work sets the reader in the narrator”s mind analyzing the viewpoints of the mother in contrast to the narrator. In “Everything that rises..” these contrasts are straight forward, while in “Fenstad”s Mother” they are subtler. Each work deals with the generation gap and the changing of social thought through conflict between the main character and his mother, however the works reverse the roles of liberal and conservative between mother and son.

Modernism And “Barn Burning”
Joseph Murphy

The Modernism period of literature produced a great many works that are considered classic today. Many of these works are filled with characters and scenes that continue even when the story is finished. The creation of the modernist author is clear and precise, the character”s are real people not just representation”s of emotion, and the work as a whole tends to lead to an overall meaning for the main character and the reader.

In “Barn Burning” each scene is itself a story to be read. This is the Modernist way of writing every detail and sight is before the reader. The very first line of “Barn Burning” puts the reader into the scene by using vivid imagery. “The store … smelled of cheese”, the main character “could see the ranked shelves close packed with solid, squat, dynamic shapes of tin cans whose labels his stomach read” ( Barn Burning, 1798 ) This description is very clear and precise, describing the store, and even saying the main character is hungry. This detail when writing is a Modernist trait.

Another aspect of “Barn Burning” that makes it a Modernist piece is its use of in depth characters. The main character Sartoris Snopes is more than just a character portraying an emotion as some Postmodern characters do. Sartoris Snopes is a well rounded character, as readers we know the boy despises what his father does, we know the boy is totally different than his brother. The father is well rounded as well, we know of his hatred of higher social classes and of his hatred of himself being on the same level as blacks. We learn these things by the vivid writing style of the author. These characters are not just a statement on paper, they are alive the reader can see the character and know the character.

A very important part of the Modernist style of work is the ability to portray some form of message. This message is learned by the main character and the reader. Postmodern literature tends to have a jumbled ending, where the meaning is unclear and often unfathomable. “Barn Burning” has an ending that is to the point. The boy Sartoris is tired of his father”s actions and wants to change. When his father goes to burn down the barn, Sartoris runs to the mansion and tells on him. This shows the difference between Sartoris and his father. At the very end, Sartoris watches his family on the wagon roll away, he turns his back and never looks back. Sartoris has made the final decision that his life will be different, the message is clear.

In my opinion, Modernism is truth on paper, maybe it is not a truth that I believe or agree with, but it is truth. Modernism uses smells, sounds, sights to paint the clear and precise picture that is the nature of Modernist works. The characters of the Modernist are well rounded to the point of almost being alive, the reader knows the character and almost feels what the character feels. And the Modernist ending is to the point, and doesn”t leave the reader struggling with meaning as Postmodernist works tend to do. “Barn Burning” displays all of these elements.

1970”s : The Turbulent Years
Joe Murphy

The 1970”s in the United States is often thought of as a boring time following the turbulent 1960”s, but according to the activity this is not the case. The 1970”s had it”s share tubulence, especially in the politics of the country. One might even say the 1970”s had far more political and social overtones then any generation in the twentieth century. This decade, although frequently thought of as the disco era, actually held many events that helped shape this nation. The 1970”s was the time the women”s movement exploded, abortion was legalized, the sexual revolution flowered, the Vietnam war ended, and counter culture first became mainstream. These five items might seem trivial but their importance helped make the United States a political hotbed that helped define our country in the 1970”s.

Prior to the 1970”s the women”s movement was basically an underground political organization. Although constantly growing and winning many major battles between the 1860”s and a major victory in 1950”s the women”s movement was at its height in the 1970”s. In 1920 the final ratification of the nineteenth amendment took place, but there was not another major step forward for women”s rights until the war years. “The last of these war years, saw rapid breakdown in the norms held for women.” ( Flexner, 305 ) After the second world war ended women”s perspective changed. Women themselves started realizing a greater potential than they previously held for themselves. Of course this is for the majority, a few women of that time in the United States already were deeply involved in the women”s movement. But this growing idea of greater potential blossomed.

During the 1960”s further progress was made at bringing women to the forefront of events. “Betty Friedmans, The Feminine Mystique, became a needed catalyst for the upper class to become involved.” ( Flexner, 345 ) With the involvement of all social classes the woman”s movement was finally ready to reach its height in the 1970”s. “Society was digesting the changes of reproductive rights, equal pay for equal work, and career freedom.” ( Edelstein, 67 ) The women”s movement of the seventies achieved many of it”s goals very rapidly. It did this by moving away from it”s original grass roots formation and latching itself onto big names of the times. Some of the faces of the women”s movement were, Betty Ford, Rosalyn Carter who helped try and push the Equal Rights Amendment through congress. This amendment was stalled though because conservatives convinced many that the women”s movement was a bunch of radical”s out to ruin the family values of America. The seventies held many events for woman, ”Ms.” Magazine had its premier issue. Billy Jean King was first women athlete to earn more than $100,000 a year. Ella Grasso is elected governor of Conneticut. Nasa accepts women for astronauts and one of the most important events, the Roe Vs. Wade decision to legalize abortion.

“Abortion laws in the United States developed out of Anglo-Saxon tradition” ( Flanders 5 ). This tradition dictated that the fetus was able to aborted prior to the quickening. It was believed that at the point of quickening the soul actually enters the fetus and it becomes human. This was challenged for the first time in 1812 when the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was legal until fetal movement. The issue wasn”t really challenged again until the late 1800”s when the American Medical Association took the anti-abortion stance. At this point abortion went down the road towards criminalization. Many states adopted strict anti-abortion laws that outlawed the practice. These strict laws lasted up until the 1960”s when liberal viewpoints began to shape the issue.

During the 1960”s, a more open and frank discussion of abortion was in the publics mind. This decade with its beginnings of open sexuality and radical idealism helped clear the way for the break down of Christian abortion strongholds across the country. Finally during the 1970”s states like Colorado, California and North Carolina became the first states to enact liberal abortion laws. The American Bar Association adopted a uniform abortion statute that became the model for all the states in 1972. Then finally in 1973 the famous decision of Roe Vs. Wade was passed down by the Supreme Court once again legalizing abortion across the country. Although this didn”t solve the issue the decision struck down all the legislation that the AMA helped pass since the late 1800”s. This decision along with the rise in the woman”s movement helped spawn the sexual revolution.

The sexual revolution went hand in hand with the Roe vs. Wade decision and the rise in women”s power. The sexual revolution was basically a time in which women were no longer afraid to show their feelings and act on them. Before the sexual revolution a women was supposed to stay home and not ask men out on dates, these are just a couple of things that changed. Women were now taking control of there lives, getting there own apartments and the big thing, enjoying sex for the first time. The sexual revolution was more about a women”s mental freedom to enjoy her sexuality and not feel guilty about it. Without the outspoken women”s movement of this or the Roe vs. Wade decision which put women in control of their bodies, the sexual revolution wouldn”t have happened. Another reason for the flowering of the sexual revolution was the ending of the Vietnam War, a war in which women took a good part in the protesting against.

The Vietnam war was a long and costly conflict for the United States. It was a major part of the formation of culture in the 1970”s. The war which ended for American troops in March 1973 when our last forces pulled out of Vietnam, actually began in autumn of 1946 when the French-Viet Minh agreement broke down. The United States had troops stationed there but the first battle ready troops landed in March 1965, when a battalion of Marines landed at Danang. “Two months later in May, the First US Army unit, the 173rd Airborne Brigade arrives in Vietnam” ( Willenson, 19 ). This buildup continued until 1969 when the United States peak strength was at 543,400. This was all actually part of a police action by the President and war was never actually declared on Vietnam. This perhaps helped spawn the intense resentment of the war by the American people.

During Vietnam, Americans reacted with a great amount of protest at home. People were seeing thousands of men die in a war that was never declared. Perhaps the mindset of the 60”s and 70”s was just too radical to support a conflict like Vietnam. Many say the war was frowned upon because of the ideas World War II left in the minds of many Americans. With nuclear power and a basic Capitalist against Communist conflict going on, the general public of the United States was very afraid. The way people reacted to this war was far different than ever before. The women”s movement took an active role in denouncing the fighting, along with many counter culture types such as Dr. Timothy Leary. First these ideas against the war started small during the first few years. But as the war reached its height in the early 1970”s the anti war movement was in full swing. Some of the largest demonstrations the United States has ever seen took place, along with incidents of rioting and violence on the home-front. This growing anti war movement was on the news and in people minds a lot. This helped bring the counter culture ideas into the mainstream of society during the 1970”s.

Counter culture has always existed in the United States. Even during the 1950”s when most people think everything was perfect and pretty. Certain people have always used drugs, worn strange clothes, or wore their hair in odd hairstyles. These are the identifiers of the counter culture movements. The large anti war movement, fed by 60”s radicalism and the growing women”s movement, helped bring this counter culture movement into the mainstream. A lot of the members of the women”s movement and the anti war movement dressed and thought differently then mainstream America at that time. So as these types gained visual recognition by the media, mainstream America was exposed to them, thus making the counter culture lifestyle more acceptable. By the time the late 1970”s came around counter culture was in full swing in the United States. It was the height of the drug era. The disco look, tight pants, mini skirts and odd hairstyles were going strong. Even high fashion stores such as Macy”s were displaying these counter culture looks in there shadow boxes. Counter culture had gone mainstream for the first time in America”s history. It was acceptable to look like a wierdo.

The 1970”s was a decade of tremendous movement for the United States. The women”s movement gained national recognition. With this national recognition and power base it helped frame the Roe vs. Wade decision. This decision in turned gave more power to women and helped bring the sexual revolution into full swing. These were also helped by the ending of the Vietnam war in which women took a great part in the protesting against. And the spotlighting of counter culture types during the war protest and women”s rights movements helped bring the counter culture of America in the mainstream for the first time. All of these things were important parts of the 1970”s. Each helped make the 1970”s one the most important political decades for the advancement of social ideals in the United States.