In The Screwtape Letters CS Lewis writes of devils and their work, appealing to anyone with an interest in the purpose of life and in how to succeed in that purpose. In his preface he explains that many symbols of devils and angels produce an undesirable effect. He gives examples such as, "The humorous, sensible, adaptable Mephistopheles has helped to strengthen the illusion that evil is liberating." (9; Revised Edition Preface) It was Lewis' intent to avoid this error. While CS Lewis's depiction of devils is not proven to be true, he successfully uses diction and characterization to appeal to our emotions to build a sense of the evil of devils and appeals to the readers' logic to guide us to our own conclusions on how to protect ourselves from the devils. Lewis's first appeal to emotion is made in the effective diction of Lewis's preface, "Readers are advised to remember that the devil is a liar," (6; preface) The connotation of the term devils is distinctly evil, thus Lewis gives us a prejudice toward them. Lewis furthers this prejudice with his use of the term liar, indicating that the devil is not to be trusted. Lewis's second appeal to emotion comes in his characterization of the devils as prideful. In the 31st chapter Screwtape expresses his victory over Wormwood "I have always desired you, as you (pitiful fool) desired me. The difference is I am the stronger," (145; ch.31) through this Lewis shows us one form of Screwtape's pride. This pride, the pride of one looking down on another, leads us to further distrust Screwtape. It is easy to see the pride of one looking down on another, thinking himself better, but Lewis doesn't confine the devils to a single form of pride. In the 1st chapter he introduces a more complex form of pride, "...oh, that abominable advantage of the Enemy's!"(8; ch.1) Here is shown the pride of the weaker or lower resenting the greater for his strength, and making excuses for his own weakness or failures. This pride shows us another shortcoming of the devils, thus Lewis deepens our distrust of them. A second characteristic, which Lewis reveals in Wormwood's attempt to send the "Secret Police" after his uncle and mentor Screwtape as displayed in the 22nd chapter is disloyalty. This quality is echoed by Screwtape, "Love you? Why, yes. As dainty a morsel as ever I grew fat on." (145; ch.31) he further explains that because Wormwood had failed he, Screwtape, would get to in some way consume Wormwood. Screwtape displays his disloyalty as he is not upset at his nephew's failure, nor interested in his defence, but rather pleased at the prospect of gaining from Wormwood's punishment. Thus Lewis continues to build our feelings of the evils of the devils right through the final chapter. Through the words of Screwtape, Lewis appealing to our logic explains the immediate goal of the devils, "the only thing that matters is the extent to which you separate the man from the Enemy." (56; ch.12) One such example is given in the first chapter as Screwtape relates a story of one of his "patients" who he almost lost. This patient, prompted by God, had begun to think religiously, and instead of arguing Screwtape just convinced the man that he needed to go for lunch, thus breaking the line of thought(9;ch.1). Lewis uses this as an appeal to logic, leaving us to conclude that this separation is to our detriment, as it is what our enemy, the devils, desires. This is how Lewis continues to build a foundation for the views he would have us develop. Lewis again appeals to our logic to guide us to a conclusion showing that the methods by which the devils produce their desired effect are numerous and varied; Lewis, through Screwtape, gives an example of just how varied they can be, "All extremes ... are to be encouraged. Not always, of course, but at this period. Some ages are lukewarm and complacent, and then it is our business to soothe them yet faster asleep," (33; ch.7) the methods given are opposing, so Lewis builds the logical basis for the belief that the devils will do it any way that works. Throughout the work Lewis gives many examples of possible methods of the devils such as, "tortured fear and stupid confidence are both desirable states of mind," (67; ch.15) the devils would encourage either state of mind. So the logical conclusion is that we will be face a wide array of methods of temptation depending on the age in which we live, and the temptations to which we are most susceptible. Lewis presents another method of the devils as Screwtape warns Wormwood of "strengthening in [his] patient the fatal habit of attending to universal issues," (8; ch.1) and that he should not argue about "doctrines as primarily `true' or `false,'" (8; ch.1) thus we may logically conclude that in order to overcome the temptations of the devils we must think upon the eternities, and consider what is true and what is false. Perhaps this is why Lewis writes in such a way as to require personal thought, so we will think of what is true and false and thwart the devils. Lewis gives further insight into the methods of the devils through the words of Screwtape, "The safest way to Hell is the gradual one--the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts,"(56;ch.12) So we know that the devils are not going to be overt. "Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick," (56; ch.12) Lewis, through the words of Screwtape, explains just how small an effective attack can be. Lewis's use of cards as a sufficient method shows just how subtle the way to Hell can be, as many would argue that the use of cards is not wrong at all, but it is what it leads to. If cards are all it takes to get someone to put God out of his mind, to disregard God's word, then it is sufficient, and the devils know it. So again he leads us to a logical conclusion: to protect ourselves from devils we must be aware of the small things that separate us from God. Through all of this Lewis makes no conclusions. He leaves that to us. As we consider such things as, "So do not allow any temporary excitement to distract you from the real business of undermining faith and preventing the formation of virtues," (25; ch.5) we may learn more of how we should act, perhaps that we should do the opposite, but Lewis never says it. By leaving the conclusions to us Lewis helps us to form our own personal methods of protection, suited to our own strengths and weaknesses. In his book, The Screwtape Letters, CS Lewis successfully instructs us how to protect ourselves from devils. He carefully appeals to our emotions through his use of diction and characterization of the devils to convince us of a need to protect ourselves. He then gives us logical instruction, but he leaves the conclusions to us, allowing us to form our own methods of protection.
0 Comments
The pessimist says the cup is half empty. The optimist says it's half full. The pragmatist says its liquid contents are at 50% capacity. The ironist says it's half full of air. The plumber says the cup must be leaking. George Carlin says the cup is too big. The Starbucks employee says it's so you have room for cream. The conspiracy theorist says aliens took the other half. The baseball player says his cup is definitely full. MacGuyver says he can build a powerful explosive with it. The psychoanalyst says the cup is your mother. The punk sitting next to you also says the cup is your mother. The romance novelist says the cup is a willing receptacle to the wild gushing torrents of pure passion from the hard chiseled urn. The zen master says, "There is no cup." Pamela Anderson says her cups are definitely full. And me, I say, "Waitress! Refill!" CNN recently published an article entitled Study: Threat of Muslim-American terrorism in U.S. exaggerated; according to a study released by Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “the terrorist threat posed by radicalized Muslim-Americans has been exaggerated.” Yet, Americans continue to live in mortal fear of radical Islam, a fear propagated and inflamed by right wing Islamophobes. If one follows the cable news networks, it seems as if all terrorists are Muslims. It has even become axiomatic in some circles to chant: “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.” Muslims and their “leftist dhimmi allies” respond feebly, mentioning Waco as the one counter example, unwittingly affirming the belief that “nearly all terrorists are Muslims.” But perception is not reality. The data simply does not support such a hasty conclusion. On the FBI’s official website, there exists a chronological list of all terrorist attacks committed on U.S. soil from the year 1980 all the way to 2005. That list can be accessed here (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05) and in the pie chart picture at the bottom. Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database According to this data, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Islamic (7% vs 6%). These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion. These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al-Qaeda and company. Yet notice the disparity in media coverage between the two. It would indeed be very interesting to construct a corresponding pie chart that depicted the level of media coverage of each group. The reason that Muslim apologists and their “leftist dhimmi allies” cannot recall another non-Islamic act of terrorism other than Waco is due to the fact that the media gives menial (if any) coverage to such events. If a terrorist attack does not fit the “Islam is the perennial and existential threat of our times” narrative, it is simply not paid much attention to, which in a circuitous manner reinforces and “proves” the preconceived narrative. It is to such an extent that the average American cannot remember any Jewish or Latino terrorist; why should he when he has never even heard of the Jewish Defense League or the Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros? Surely what he does not know does not exist! The Islamophobes claim that Islam is intrinsically a terrorist religion. The proof? Well, just about every terrorist attack is Islamic, they retort. Unfortunately for them, that’s not quite true. More like six percent. Using their defunct logic, these right wingers ought now to conclude that nearly all acts of terrorism are committed by Latinos (or Jews). Let them dare say it…they couldn’t; it would be political and social suicide to say such a thing. Most Americans would shut down such talk as bigoted; yet, similar statements continue to be said of Islam, without any repercussions. The Islamophobes live in a fantasy world where everyone is supposedly too “politically correct” to criticize Islam and Muslims. Yet, the reality is the exact opposite: you can get away with saying anything against the crescent. Can you imagine the reaction if I said that Latinos should be profiled because after all they are the ones who commit the most terrorism in the country? (For the record: I don’t believe in such profiling, because I am–unlike the right wing nutters–a believer in American ideals.) The moral of the story is that Americans ought to calm down when it comes to Islamic terrorism. Right wingers always live in mortal fear–or rather, they try to make you feel that way. In fact, Pamela Geller (the queen of internet Islamophobia) literally said her mission was to “scare the bejeezus outta ya.” Don’t be fooled, and don’t be a wuss. You don’t live in constant fear of radicalized Latinos (unless you’re Lou Dobbs), even though they commit seven times more acts of terrorism than Muslims in America. Why then are you wetting yourself over Islamic radicals? In the words of Cenk Uygur: you’re at a ten when you need to be at a four. Nobody is saying that Islamic terrorism is not a matter of concern, but it’s grossly exaggerated. For several years the news media have focused our attention on the phenomenon of suicide terrorism. Our television screens have been filled with images of bloodshed, destruction and death in places like Jerusalem, Baghdad and London. In these news reports, the very image of the "suicide bomber" has been wedded to phrases like "Muslim extremism," or "Islamic Holy War." Looking behind these media driven clichés, Robert Pape who teaches at the University of Chicago has compiled the first complete database, reflecting a careful examination of every documented case of suicide bombing from 1980-2003. Pape's conclusions are contained in a new book, "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism." Pape argues that the news reports about suicide terrorism are profoundly misleading. "There is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions," Pape reports. After studying 315 suicide attacks carried out over the last two decades, the political science professor concludes that suicide bombers' actions stem from political conflict, not religion. While television viewers and newspaper readers in the US hear more about events in Israel, Iraq, Madrid and London, Pape points out that the Tamil Tigers, a group that most Americans have never heard of, are responsible for more suicide attacks over the last two decades than any other group. The Tamil Tigers have have been influenced by a Marxist/Leninist ideology which is largely atheistic and disavow any connection with the Hinduism practiced by many of the people the the region of Sri Lanka where they operate. The Tamil Tigers are engaged in a struggle for independence from the central Sri Lankan government. Pape's strong conclusion is that religious fundamentalism is NOT the source of suicide bombings or terrorism. "What nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland." This is true in Sri Lanka, it is true in the Middle East (where many terrorist groups consider themselves secular rather than religious) and, yes, in Iraq, where former Baathist supporters of Saddam Hussein may use Islam as a cover and even a recruiting tool, but are motivated by clear political objectives: the pressure the US to leave Iraq so that the way will be clear for their own return to power. Worldwide, the struggle is about power and politics, not religion. Bottom line: Asymmetrical warfare makes the world safe for suicide terrorism, while religion is a smokescreen and cover for what is actually happening. Focusing on "Muslim extremism" is therefore likely to make matters worse, rather than leading to a solution to the problem.. Atheist Tyrants Moreover, when one considers earlier examples of mass murder and violence in history, the violence perpetrated in the name of God pales by comparison with the violence committed by those who disavow religion. Writing in the Christian Science Monitor recently, Dinesh D'Souza makes the point: It is strange to witness the passion with which some secular figures rail against the misdeeds of the Crusaders and Inquisitors more than 500 years ago. The number sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition appears to be about 10,000. Some historians contend that an additional 100,000 died in jail due to malnutrition or illness. These figures are tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at the time. But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people. Wanton violence and slaughter is, of course, deplorable whether committed under the cover of religion or secular ideology. In this, peace loving theists and atheists can agree ... and make common cause in the struggle to rid the world of war. And when the guns and bombs are silenced, we can get back to the question of God. Native Americans discovered monotheism too, quite without European influence. There was a prophet, born on Catalina Island evidently who operated primarily out of the future site of Los Angeles and preached that all other religions were evil and had to go. There was also Dekinawideh and Hiawatha, but I digress. In particular he demonized Coyote, the relatively benevolent Promethean figure up until that time, making him out to be the Evil One. The new religion spread widely through the southwest. Funny how history repeats itself, doesn't it? I note with interest that certain New Age faiths, despite being fairly mellow about most things, are almost unanimous in their tendency to demonize Christianity and (as the Christians did before them) distort history to suit their own world picture. Well, so it goes... I'm more of an old-fashioned animist, myself.
Fifty years ago the populace was worried that the government was drugging the populace to make them more docile and easily controlled (Fluoride keeps water clean but does calm people). Now the people want drugs that make them docile legalized.
In a 2010 study of the effects of fear on mice using endocanniboids (which act like cannabis), socially applicable concerns developed. The effects were that the mice had a harder time learning, or did not react to dangerous situations, such as having a natural fear of water (mice drown easily). The effects of PTSD were also addressed in the belief that endocanniboids could relive PTSD. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a legalized substance that made it harder for the populace to learn, and also eliminated fear in our soldiers? No more would a soldier see his friend die on the battlefield and be shocked by the atrocity, he could be drugged and sent right out into war. When looking at the legalization of ANYTHING, we cannot simply look at only its benefits. We must look at the social reprecussions and how they could be misused. The people were all in favor of DDT as an effective pesticide. Kids even ran out in the streets to play in the DDT clouds. We will see the social ramifications of legalized drugs soon enough. I predict an increase in the suicide rate and an inbalance of taxpayer-to-public-works ratio. Next we should completely dehumanize women and turn them into organic tissue paper, er, ahem, legalize prostitution. I will teach my children to utilize their minds, not stupify them, to be socially conscious and respect themselves and others. I will teach them to do this without chemical dependency. But if they do take drugs, I promise to make it memorable...muahahahahahahahaha! So the last few days have been kind of a blur. NaNoWriMo is over and I should be taking a bit of a breather. Life however says that I must go hurrier.
Day starts at 5am and goes until midnight or later, with a brief nap when I fall asleep on the bus. The writing is taking a hit, and I became slightly disheartened when I read about Amazon's new ways of making it difficult for the little guy. On the bright side I also "discovered" smashwords. That site is great. Now I can see how many times my books have been viewed compared to how they have been pucheased and make tweeks accordingly. Things are going to keep being busy, and I'm going to keep trying to get the words out. I just put two boys to bed and that's given me a little breather, but there is still so much to do around the house. And now I find out that the Big Six publishing houses have infested Amazon, and now Indie publishers such as myself are getting "dumped. Example? Know that widget at the bottom that says "Customers who bought XXX also bought..."?
Well, if you were an Indie you could be seen right next to authors such as Murikami or Koontz. Well, no longer. Unless you're from a publisher you won't be seen at all in the widget. Also, I'm not allowed to review other books because I am an author. Clearly Amazon believed that this was just not right that authors should be allowed to review books, even though major publishers have wrought the book review system for decades and habitually use well known authors to write book reviews. But what’s a little hypocrisy when an end needs a means. If you’re a self published author, the message is clear, and get ready for more bad news in the near future. All your free ebook giveaways were for nothing. You were all just way too popular for the good of the publishing industry, who are now struggling to afford their champagne lunches every day. But boy, did you help sell millions of Kindles. Well done. But you’ve served your purpose, now pack your bags and get the hell out of publishing! |
Why "Failed Daily"?
Because I fail to update daily. Archives
March 2022
Categories
All
|