Humanity in 1984: Rediscovering Emotion
Eileen Xue
Within a nightmarish dystopia of corporal punishment and heavily scrutinized citizens, George Orwell’s 1984 presents an unnerving outlook on the suppression of emotion. Though life is unforgiving for Oceania’s citizens, a window of mortality unveils itself in contrast with the bleak conditions of authoritarianism. Emotion, a traitorous crime to the government and one directly threatening to the life of those guilty, emerges in one citizen named Winston Smith. As life casts Winston into an inescapable embark of love under the perilous scrutiny of the Party, Orwell expresses the transformative nature of human passion, defining emotional desire as the characteristic drive of one’s humanity.
In 1984, emotion pervades in Winston’s romantic journey, verifying the influence of the heart throughout one’s life. Oceania’s tyrannical regime drains Winston of all emotion until he falls for a young, dauntless woman pursuing her own personal enjoyment with a remarkable vitality. Kathleen O’Dwyer affirms love to be the greatest motivation for pursuing happiness, justifying Winston’s newfound attraction to Julia, “Russell describes the experience of happiness as a ‘zest’ for life...the feeling of being loved promotes zest more than anything else does” (3). Overwhelmingly, Winston’s love reanimates his “zest,” and he experiences the joy of private emotion while relearning the richness of living through romance. Thus, Orwell carefully sculpts the essential nature of emotion through Winston and Julia’s affair, “Their experiment in the rediscovery of the human...leads them to cherish two things that are fundamentally hostile to the totalitarian outlook: a life of contemplativeness and the joy of ‘purposeless’” (Howe 43). In a dystopia of manipulation and totalitarian control, the emergence of one’s own emotion proves treacherous yet irresistible to the lives of two lovers. Winston acts out his desire for love and life without obligation, valuing the “purposeless” of falling in love. Orwell’s theme of emotion being the root of the human condition proves itself through the fervent desire of love and its role in happiness, a need all humans share but are unable to enact freely in 1984.
Throughout 1984, the human condition of emotion also appears as the recurring concept of living being incomparable to surviving. Orwell exhibits emotion as a core of the human soul, one which triumphs over competing instincts of survival. In a contemporary analysis of 1984’s message and the “human heart,” Samuel Hynes explains, “[Orwell] believed in the authority of the human heart. The things he valued--privacy, decency, and the human spirit--rise from sources deeper than philosophy or logic” (19). The human heart, a vulnerable attribute in any totalitarian setting, describes impulsive passions which harm survivability unlike reasoning or logic. Yet, Winston’s revelation at his own humanity demonstrate love, privacy, and personal reflection persevere throughout the danger of existence. Realizing the pleasures of life, Winston contemplates the nature of truly living, entering a new realm of possibility barricaded from him before. Without the protectiveness of silence controlling his instinctual urges, Winston delights in a future meaning more than survival, “To hang on from day to day and from week to week, spinning out a present that had no future, seemed an unconquerable instinct, just as one’s lungs will always draw the next breath so long as there is air available” (Orwell 152). Winston’s willingness to fleetingly experience the joy of living in spite of danger incredibly exemplifies the human condition. Humans instinctively grasp at a life of emotional well-being and self-directed future. Similarly, Jenny Florence describes the need for emotional experience as the root of the human condition, “everything that we do and in every moment of our lives we are in a state of experience. And the quality of that experience...it’s defined by our emotions” (Florence). Eventually reflecting on human action, Winston realizes survival-based thinking succeeds at extending existence; however, it fails to be the answer to remaining human. As Orwell draws out a character’s life and experience, emotional drive serves as a main aspect of humanity crucial to the universal quest for personal gratification and living.
Though emotionality persists throughout the human journey, some may assert survival and physiological satisfaction dominates other measures of humanity. However, in Winston’s passion for love and devotion to self-righteousness regardless of safety, one can undoubtedly realize a flaw within this assertion. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs massively overgeneralizes the complexities of humanity, “Maslow’s hierarchy makes a valid point that certain motivations take priority over others. However, this theory fails if we take it literally...Might you walk through the bitter cold, passing up opportunities to eat or drink, to be with someone you love?” (Kalat 353). Indeed, Winston renounces safety repeatedly and often recklessly after falling for Julia, prioritizing other desires than his own “basic” needs. In reality, people constantly desire for more than immediate demands, many times favoring emotion. Incorrectly, this viewpoint holds the implicit belief that depriving one of immediate needs locks away certain aspects of humanity. Even within the party’s doctrine for subduing its citizens’ wants with pain, this possibility is well known as false, “‘By itself,’ he said, ‘pain is not enough. There are always occasions when a human being will stand out against pain, even to the point of death’” (Orwell 284). O’Brien reveals that while the Party compromises its citizens’ safety, they cannot eliminate emotion other than through death. Consequently, human nature in 1984 is not explained through a “bare minimum” to living. Orwell presents humanity in a fashion to highlight the imperfect nature of being human and complexity of human needs, all which contradict the organized fashion of such a hierarchy.
Through a fatal conclusion, 1984 lastly illustrates emotionality by shooting Winston after his imprisonment in the Ministry of Love. Gruesome tortures reignite Winston’s fear, and he begins lying frantically to escape his pain. When ineffective, Winston submits into a state of emotional suppression as the pain intensifies, “we can restrain emotion when its normal conditions are present...and if certain points of view become habitual, certain emotions will be habitually suppressed” (Irons 249). This habitual expectation of pain motivates the suppression of emotion in both citizens and active prisoners. Under unrelenting torture, Oceania’s prisoners experience an increasingly distorted perception of the world. Despite this, emotion suppresses reliably only under continued motivations of pain, or when it's “normal conditions at present.” Due to emotion’s resilient nature, O’Brien soon tells Winston the Party does more than torture citizens to rid their emotion; they eventually kill them. Knowing this, Winston leaves the torture scene intellectually shattered but emotionally intact. Helplessly, Winston lets out a cry for Julia during a bout of hysteria and signals O’Brien of his failure to surrender emotion, “‘You have had thoughts of deceiving me...intellectually there is very little wrong with you. It is only emotionally that you have failed to make progress’” (Orwell 282). After being sent to Room 101 for “completion,” Winston’s love is forgotten. Later living in the illusory world of the Party in confused submission, he awaits the bullet of complete termination. Though now completely inaccessible, Winston retains the incriminating mark of emotionality until the last moments of life. Literally or symbolically, emotion ends only with physical cessation, and Orwell depicts this through a recognizable symbol of execution: the bullet which carries Winston’s emotions alongside him into “death.”
Exceptionally, George Orwell’s 1984 defines the human condition in a way which calls to attention the wild and dynamic nature of the heart, establishing emotion as necessary to all human beings. In his novel, Orwell expresses a life of forced emotional suppression, making 1984 a horrific vision of a future when totalitarianism kills the freedom of the heart. Though bleak, 1984 reminds one of their own humanity within an extreme setting of control, revealing many truths of present day surveillance. When power eradicates compassion, personal emotion is unmentioned and a silenced society becomes the norm, one which is nearly irreparable at the hands of controlled citizens. Consequently, this future becomes increasing critical to realize for witnesses of its progression, and if not, humanity runs a dangerous risk of losing a vital component of the human condition: freedom in emotion.
In 1984, emotion pervades in Winston’s romantic journey, verifying the influence of the heart throughout one’s life. Oceania’s tyrannical regime drains Winston of all emotion until he falls for a young, dauntless woman pursuing her own personal enjoyment with a remarkable vitality. Kathleen O’Dwyer affirms love to be the greatest motivation for pursuing happiness, justifying Winston’s newfound attraction to Julia, “Russell describes the experience of happiness as a ‘zest’ for life...the feeling of being loved promotes zest more than anything else does” (3). Overwhelmingly, Winston’s love reanimates his “zest,” and he experiences the joy of private emotion while relearning the richness of living through romance. Thus, Orwell carefully sculpts the essential nature of emotion through Winston and Julia’s affair, “Their experiment in the rediscovery of the human...leads them to cherish two things that are fundamentally hostile to the totalitarian outlook: a life of contemplativeness and the joy of ‘purposeless’” (Howe 43). In a dystopia of manipulation and totalitarian control, the emergence of one’s own emotion proves treacherous yet irresistible to the lives of two lovers. Winston acts out his desire for love and life without obligation, valuing the “purposeless” of falling in love. Orwell’s theme of emotion being the root of the human condition proves itself through the fervent desire of love and its role in happiness, a need all humans share but are unable to enact freely in 1984.
Throughout 1984, the human condition of emotion also appears as the recurring concept of living being incomparable to surviving. Orwell exhibits emotion as a core of the human soul, one which triumphs over competing instincts of survival. In a contemporary analysis of 1984’s message and the “human heart,” Samuel Hynes explains, “[Orwell] believed in the authority of the human heart. The things he valued--privacy, decency, and the human spirit--rise from sources deeper than philosophy or logic” (19). The human heart, a vulnerable attribute in any totalitarian setting, describes impulsive passions which harm survivability unlike reasoning or logic. Yet, Winston’s revelation at his own humanity demonstrate love, privacy, and personal reflection persevere throughout the danger of existence. Realizing the pleasures of life, Winston contemplates the nature of truly living, entering a new realm of possibility barricaded from him before. Without the protectiveness of silence controlling his instinctual urges, Winston delights in a future meaning more than survival, “To hang on from day to day and from week to week, spinning out a present that had no future, seemed an unconquerable instinct, just as one’s lungs will always draw the next breath so long as there is air available” (Orwell 152). Winston’s willingness to fleetingly experience the joy of living in spite of danger incredibly exemplifies the human condition. Humans instinctively grasp at a life of emotional well-being and self-directed future. Similarly, Jenny Florence describes the need for emotional experience as the root of the human condition, “everything that we do and in every moment of our lives we are in a state of experience. And the quality of that experience...it’s defined by our emotions” (Florence). Eventually reflecting on human action, Winston realizes survival-based thinking succeeds at extending existence; however, it fails to be the answer to remaining human. As Orwell draws out a character’s life and experience, emotional drive serves as a main aspect of humanity crucial to the universal quest for personal gratification and living.
Though emotionality persists throughout the human journey, some may assert survival and physiological satisfaction dominates other measures of humanity. However, in Winston’s passion for love and devotion to self-righteousness regardless of safety, one can undoubtedly realize a flaw within this assertion. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs massively overgeneralizes the complexities of humanity, “Maslow’s hierarchy makes a valid point that certain motivations take priority over others. However, this theory fails if we take it literally...Might you walk through the bitter cold, passing up opportunities to eat or drink, to be with someone you love?” (Kalat 353). Indeed, Winston renounces safety repeatedly and often recklessly after falling for Julia, prioritizing other desires than his own “basic” needs. In reality, people constantly desire for more than immediate demands, many times favoring emotion. Incorrectly, this viewpoint holds the implicit belief that depriving one of immediate needs locks away certain aspects of humanity. Even within the party’s doctrine for subduing its citizens’ wants with pain, this possibility is well known as false, “‘By itself,’ he said, ‘pain is not enough. There are always occasions when a human being will stand out against pain, even to the point of death’” (Orwell 284). O’Brien reveals that while the Party compromises its citizens’ safety, they cannot eliminate emotion other than through death. Consequently, human nature in 1984 is not explained through a “bare minimum” to living. Orwell presents humanity in a fashion to highlight the imperfect nature of being human and complexity of human needs, all which contradict the organized fashion of such a hierarchy.
Through a fatal conclusion, 1984 lastly illustrates emotionality by shooting Winston after his imprisonment in the Ministry of Love. Gruesome tortures reignite Winston’s fear, and he begins lying frantically to escape his pain. When ineffective, Winston submits into a state of emotional suppression as the pain intensifies, “we can restrain emotion when its normal conditions are present...and if certain points of view become habitual, certain emotions will be habitually suppressed” (Irons 249). This habitual expectation of pain motivates the suppression of emotion in both citizens and active prisoners. Under unrelenting torture, Oceania’s prisoners experience an increasingly distorted perception of the world. Despite this, emotion suppresses reliably only under continued motivations of pain, or when it's “normal conditions at present.” Due to emotion’s resilient nature, O’Brien soon tells Winston the Party does more than torture citizens to rid their emotion; they eventually kill them. Knowing this, Winston leaves the torture scene intellectually shattered but emotionally intact. Helplessly, Winston lets out a cry for Julia during a bout of hysteria and signals O’Brien of his failure to surrender emotion, “‘You have had thoughts of deceiving me...intellectually there is very little wrong with you. It is only emotionally that you have failed to make progress’” (Orwell 282). After being sent to Room 101 for “completion,” Winston’s love is forgotten. Later living in the illusory world of the Party in confused submission, he awaits the bullet of complete termination. Though now completely inaccessible, Winston retains the incriminating mark of emotionality until the last moments of life. Literally or symbolically, emotion ends only with physical cessation, and Orwell depicts this through a recognizable symbol of execution: the bullet which carries Winston’s emotions alongside him into “death.”
Exceptionally, George Orwell’s 1984 defines the human condition in a way which calls to attention the wild and dynamic nature of the heart, establishing emotion as necessary to all human beings. In his novel, Orwell expresses a life of forced emotional suppression, making 1984 a horrific vision of a future when totalitarianism kills the freedom of the heart. Though bleak, 1984 reminds one of their own humanity within an extreme setting of control, revealing many truths of present day surveillance. When power eradicates compassion, personal emotion is unmentioned and a silenced society becomes the norm, one which is nearly irreparable at the hands of controlled citizens. Consequently, this future becomes increasing critical to realize for witnesses of its progression, and if not, humanity runs a dangerous risk of losing a vital component of the human condition: freedom in emotion.
Joan of Arc: From housemaid to Saint
Ben Michalk
Out of the many men and women who have come to be remembered and mentioned in historical texts, such as Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan or Charlemagne, Joan of Arc of France is one of, or probably the most, influential figures of Western European Feudal Age history. She was a 15 to 16-year-old girl who defied the laws and doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church by cross-dressing as a man to gain access to people, places, and events that would have been impossible without male clothing:
Mr. Williamson did share with me what he found in the "De Quadam Puella" chronicle which "specifically says that she normally resumed female clothing shortly after dismounting her horse while traveling during her campaigns, rather than wearing male clothing at all times."(http://stJoan-center.com/clothing/index.htm)
She inspired many of the patriotic French people, including soldiers, peasants, nobility, and the royal family members to believe that there was hope for detachment, freedom, and victory over their tyrannical rivals, the English Empire and their allies, the Burgundians. In return for her assistance in the eventual ending of the century long war between these two enduring monarchies, which is now formally known as The Hundred Years War, Joan was burned at the stake. Fear that she was an instrument of Satan, rather than God, was the publicized reason for her execution. Nearly five centuries years later, she was acquitted of all charges and sanctified as the Catholic Saint of Virgins. As with many who rose to fame from the nooks and crannies of the world, Joan of Arc, also known by the title ‘The Maid of Orléans’ (or-lay-on), is worthy to be remembered. The fact that a peasant teenage female could lead entire male armies from higher socioeconomic classes into battle after battle is truly historically significant. In light of humiliation at her hand, England found her to be a “witch and relapsed heretic” and burned her at the stake, as was the custom form of execution for these crimes of the time. Even though she is infamous for her inspiring leadership and victories in battle, her trial is even more important than her military career. This is because her existence represented a threat to the Church’s power over the populace, which was the highest authority of the Christian European political parties.
After Joan liberated the French capital city of Orléans, she lead the Dauphin to Reims, where in 1429, Charles VII was crowned King of France:
Although it appeared that Charles had accepted Joan’s mission, he did not display full trust in her judgement or advice. After The French victory at Orléans, Joan kept encouraging the Dauphin to travel to Reims to be crowned France’s new king, but he and his advisors were more cautious. Later into the year , Charles and his procession finally entered Reims, and he was crowned Charles VII on July 18, 1429. Joan was at his side, occupying a visible place at the ceremonies. (http://whitman's.seattleschools.org)
On May 23 1430, Joan was captured in battle by Burgundian troops. At the time, it was usual for prisoners of war to be ransomed for currency, such as land, gold, or needed supplies. However, Joan’s family, given their poverty and class, had no wealth or influence to pay the ransom of 10,000 francs for her return:
The evidence indicates that Charles VII probably was not among the guilty, however, nor did he abandon her, as is so often claimed: according to the archives of the Morosini, who were in contact with the royal court. Charles VII tried to force the Burgundians to return Joan in exchange for the usual ransom, and threatened to treat Burgundian prisoners according to whatever standard was adopted in Joan's case. (http://archive.Joan-of-arc.org/)
As a result of Jean’s unusual abilities, the English government could not comprehend how they had been bested by a female peasant. To save face, they decided to charge Joan with witchcraft, heresy and 78 other crimes, ranging from treason to petty horse theft. “Poor, deluded Joan. She has no idea she has put a monster on the throne. Those are my last words as Your Majesty's spiritual advisor.” (Clergy trial documents between Bishop Cauchon and King of England). Once they gathered their massive array of crimes they presented her to the Catholic Church papacy. The Bishop of Beauvais, Pierre Cauchon, was appointed responsible for the trial. Cauchon had initially expected Joan to confess to her supposed crimes, but she refused out of spiritual defiance:
The English-Burgundian forces did not deny Joan's superhuman powers, but ascribed them to the Devil. So the English commanders arranged for bishop Cauchon, who was more interested in politics than in religion, to establish a court to prove that Joan was a witch.(http://www.churchinhistory.org)
Although Cauchon ordered a testimony against Joan, The Church could not find sustainable evidence to prosecute her of her supposed crimes. Despite these complications, and with having no account of Joan’s confession or reliable evidence to back the charges against her, the case against her progressed.
The trial was recorded by Church clergymen. The transcript from the trial’s most famous exchange is a conversation between Bishop Cauchon and Joan. Joan was being questioned whether or not she was in God's grace during her time with the Dauphin of France and afterwards. She answered with: “If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me.” (Trial of Joan of Arc Transcript). The inquiry is a theological test. Catholic Church theology and doctrine states that no mortal man nor woman could be certain of being in God's grace or not, because positive beings like angels have no form, and negative beings such as demons hold physical forms. If she had answered with, “Indeed, I saw them”, then she would have confessed to heresy. If she had answered, “They were false”, then she would have confessed to treason. Both of these crimes had equal consequences: execution.
Joan agreed with the Church to wear women’s clothing for the remainder of the trial and in exchange all charges would be dropped. However, around the third day she resumed wearing male clothing as a defense against rape by the guards: “Without denying the possibility that Joan was harassed by her guards (this seems likely), I would like to consider the explanation offered at the condemnation …”(Trial of Joan of Arc Page 2). On this issue, Joan was charged as a relapsed heretic. It was at the Marketplace in Rouen, where she was burned at the stake on May 30th 1431.
Many years later, Pope Callixtus III authorized a retrial. She was retried to investigate and determine whether her conviction was handled properly. Theologians read the testimony from 115 witnesses, and settled that Joan was innocent:
Pope Callixtus III authorized a retrial after the war ended at the request of Inquisitor-General Jean Brehal and of Joan's mother. The aim of the retrial was to investigate whether the trial had been handled justly. A panel of theologians analysed testimony from 115 witnesses, and concludes that Joan was a martyr. The panel also concludes that Cauchon was a heretic for having convicted an innocent woman in pursuit of a vendetta. (Famous Cases: The Trial of Joan of Arc)
As a result of killing an innocent girl, the newly elected archbishop, Pierre Cauchon, was convicted of violating church law in pursuit of an ego and secular vendetta:
God is the ultimate judge, according to these prominent medieval theologians; the clergy were considered to be free from error only if they were truly acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (which only God can know). (archive.Joan-of-arc.org/Joanofarc_protestant_issue.html)
After the retrial of Joan, Inquisitor-General Jean Bréhal, the lead investigator into the retrial, wrote his final synopsis on the lack of evidence. His summary described Joan as an innocent and martyr falsely convicted in her trial. As stated previously, this violated Church law all for the pursuit of a secular vendetta. It was also found that some other Church members joined Cauchon on his quest to convict Joan. Some even went as far as to deceive her in certain situations, in order to obtain information that they would otherwise not be privy to:
Father Thomas de Courcelles had no difficulty in distorting, twisting and very often completely reversing Joan of Arc's own testimony when he drew up the seventy articles against her. Father Nicolas Loiseleur functioned as Pierre Cauchon's spy. He purposely deceived Joan of Arc by passing himself off as 'a shoemaker from Lorraine' who was also a prisoner of the English to gain her confidence. At other times, he presented himself to her as he really was - a priest to hear her confession and spiritual advisor. At night, her cell was dark and she could not see his face clearly. He would also cover his head and face with a hood and muffle his voice.(stJoan-center.com)
As punishment for executing an innocent, The Pope excommunicated Cauchon in 1457. 500 years after her death, the Church declared Joan of Arc a martyr and lifted all charges brought upon her by the Archbishop. On May 9th, 1920, Pope Benedict XV declared her the Holy Catholic Saint of Virgins. Furthermore, to commemorate Joan’s inspiring life and support of France during The 100 Years War, the French government commissioned a statue of her. The sculpture was erected in 1874 by Emmanuel Freiment, a famous sculptor known for his work of Joan’s only public statue in France, and the monument of Ferdinand de Lesseps in Suez.
Mr. Williamson did share with me what he found in the "De Quadam Puella" chronicle which "specifically says that she normally resumed female clothing shortly after dismounting her horse while traveling during her campaigns, rather than wearing male clothing at all times."(http://stJoan-center.com/clothing/index.htm)
She inspired many of the patriotic French people, including soldiers, peasants, nobility, and the royal family members to believe that there was hope for detachment, freedom, and victory over their tyrannical rivals, the English Empire and their allies, the Burgundians. In return for her assistance in the eventual ending of the century long war between these two enduring monarchies, which is now formally known as The Hundred Years War, Joan was burned at the stake. Fear that she was an instrument of Satan, rather than God, was the publicized reason for her execution. Nearly five centuries years later, she was acquitted of all charges and sanctified as the Catholic Saint of Virgins. As with many who rose to fame from the nooks and crannies of the world, Joan of Arc, also known by the title ‘The Maid of Orléans’ (or-lay-on), is worthy to be remembered. The fact that a peasant teenage female could lead entire male armies from higher socioeconomic classes into battle after battle is truly historically significant. In light of humiliation at her hand, England found her to be a “witch and relapsed heretic” and burned her at the stake, as was the custom form of execution for these crimes of the time. Even though she is infamous for her inspiring leadership and victories in battle, her trial is even more important than her military career. This is because her existence represented a threat to the Church’s power over the populace, which was the highest authority of the Christian European political parties.
After Joan liberated the French capital city of Orléans, she lead the Dauphin to Reims, where in 1429, Charles VII was crowned King of France:
Although it appeared that Charles had accepted Joan’s mission, he did not display full trust in her judgement or advice. After The French victory at Orléans, Joan kept encouraging the Dauphin to travel to Reims to be crowned France’s new king, but he and his advisors were more cautious. Later into the year , Charles and his procession finally entered Reims, and he was crowned Charles VII on July 18, 1429. Joan was at his side, occupying a visible place at the ceremonies. (http://whitman's.seattleschools.org)
On May 23 1430, Joan was captured in battle by Burgundian troops. At the time, it was usual for prisoners of war to be ransomed for currency, such as land, gold, or needed supplies. However, Joan’s family, given their poverty and class, had no wealth or influence to pay the ransom of 10,000 francs for her return:
The evidence indicates that Charles VII probably was not among the guilty, however, nor did he abandon her, as is so often claimed: according to the archives of the Morosini, who were in contact with the royal court. Charles VII tried to force the Burgundians to return Joan in exchange for the usual ransom, and threatened to treat Burgundian prisoners according to whatever standard was adopted in Joan's case. (http://archive.Joan-of-arc.org/)
As a result of Jean’s unusual abilities, the English government could not comprehend how they had been bested by a female peasant. To save face, they decided to charge Joan with witchcraft, heresy and 78 other crimes, ranging from treason to petty horse theft. “Poor, deluded Joan. She has no idea she has put a monster on the throne. Those are my last words as Your Majesty's spiritual advisor.” (Clergy trial documents between Bishop Cauchon and King of England). Once they gathered their massive array of crimes they presented her to the Catholic Church papacy. The Bishop of Beauvais, Pierre Cauchon, was appointed responsible for the trial. Cauchon had initially expected Joan to confess to her supposed crimes, but she refused out of spiritual defiance:
The English-Burgundian forces did not deny Joan's superhuman powers, but ascribed them to the Devil. So the English commanders arranged for bishop Cauchon, who was more interested in politics than in religion, to establish a court to prove that Joan was a witch.(http://www.churchinhistory.org)
Although Cauchon ordered a testimony against Joan, The Church could not find sustainable evidence to prosecute her of her supposed crimes. Despite these complications, and with having no account of Joan’s confession or reliable evidence to back the charges against her, the case against her progressed.
The trial was recorded by Church clergymen. The transcript from the trial’s most famous exchange is a conversation between Bishop Cauchon and Joan. Joan was being questioned whether or not she was in God's grace during her time with the Dauphin of France and afterwards. She answered with: “If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me.” (Trial of Joan of Arc Transcript). The inquiry is a theological test. Catholic Church theology and doctrine states that no mortal man nor woman could be certain of being in God's grace or not, because positive beings like angels have no form, and negative beings such as demons hold physical forms. If she had answered with, “Indeed, I saw them”, then she would have confessed to heresy. If she had answered, “They were false”, then she would have confessed to treason. Both of these crimes had equal consequences: execution.
Joan agreed with the Church to wear women’s clothing for the remainder of the trial and in exchange all charges would be dropped. However, around the third day she resumed wearing male clothing as a defense against rape by the guards: “Without denying the possibility that Joan was harassed by her guards (this seems likely), I would like to consider the explanation offered at the condemnation …”(Trial of Joan of Arc Page 2). On this issue, Joan was charged as a relapsed heretic. It was at the Marketplace in Rouen, where she was burned at the stake on May 30th 1431.
Many years later, Pope Callixtus III authorized a retrial. She was retried to investigate and determine whether her conviction was handled properly. Theologians read the testimony from 115 witnesses, and settled that Joan was innocent:
Pope Callixtus III authorized a retrial after the war ended at the request of Inquisitor-General Jean Brehal and of Joan's mother. The aim of the retrial was to investigate whether the trial had been handled justly. A panel of theologians analysed testimony from 115 witnesses, and concludes that Joan was a martyr. The panel also concludes that Cauchon was a heretic for having convicted an innocent woman in pursuit of a vendetta. (Famous Cases: The Trial of Joan of Arc)
As a result of killing an innocent girl, the newly elected archbishop, Pierre Cauchon, was convicted of violating church law in pursuit of an ego and secular vendetta:
God is the ultimate judge, according to these prominent medieval theologians; the clergy were considered to be free from error only if they were truly acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (which only God can know). (archive.Joan-of-arc.org/Joanofarc_protestant_issue.html)
After the retrial of Joan, Inquisitor-General Jean Bréhal, the lead investigator into the retrial, wrote his final synopsis on the lack of evidence. His summary described Joan as an innocent and martyr falsely convicted in her trial. As stated previously, this violated Church law all for the pursuit of a secular vendetta. It was also found that some other Church members joined Cauchon on his quest to convict Joan. Some even went as far as to deceive her in certain situations, in order to obtain information that they would otherwise not be privy to:
Father Thomas de Courcelles had no difficulty in distorting, twisting and very often completely reversing Joan of Arc's own testimony when he drew up the seventy articles against her. Father Nicolas Loiseleur functioned as Pierre Cauchon's spy. He purposely deceived Joan of Arc by passing himself off as 'a shoemaker from Lorraine' who was also a prisoner of the English to gain her confidence. At other times, he presented himself to her as he really was - a priest to hear her confession and spiritual advisor. At night, her cell was dark and she could not see his face clearly. He would also cover his head and face with a hood and muffle his voice.(stJoan-center.com)
As punishment for executing an innocent, The Pope excommunicated Cauchon in 1457. 500 years after her death, the Church declared Joan of Arc a martyr and lifted all charges brought upon her by the Archbishop. On May 9th, 1920, Pope Benedict XV declared her the Holy Catholic Saint of Virgins. Furthermore, to commemorate Joan’s inspiring life and support of France during The 100 Years War, the French government commissioned a statue of her. The sculpture was erected in 1874 by Emmanuel Freiment, a famous sculptor known for his work of Joan’s only public statue in France, and the monument of Ferdinand de Lesseps in Suez.
The Importance of Identity
Sloane Vanciel
Rene Descartes, a French philosopher, wrote in his 1637 book, Discourse of the Method, a deceivingly simple phrase: “I think, therefore I am” (Descartes). This phrase is well regarded within academic circles and has been studied for centuries. Descartes’ work is the pinnacle of the idea of identity; that our thoughts are what make us who we are. Because one’s thoughts influence one’s actions, our identity is rooted in what we think, say, and do. In 1943, Abraham Maslow developed the Hierarchy of Needs; a pyramid that lays out the 5 fundamental needs of human beings. 3 of these 5 needs are centered around identity: Belonging, Esteem, and Self-Actualization. (Maslow 4). These philosophers show that humans place central importance on the concept of identity, but why is identity important? Identity is important to humans because it is how we express ourselves and gives us a focus to which we constantly work towards; without a purpose, we waste away our lives, which hurts others, as well as ourselves. As important as identity is, it is often threatened by single stories, which make our identity much less complex than it really is, and when our identity is based on a single story, we lose the opportunity to broaden ourselves and make who we are more diverse.
Without a sense of identity, one’s life has no meaning or purpose, which can hurt oneself and others. In Ibsen’s work, A Doll’s House, when Nora argues to Torvald why she needs to leave him and make a new life, she contends, “I have been performing tricks for you, Torvald. That’s how I’ve survived. You wanted it like that. You and Papa have done me a great wrong. It’s because of you I’ve made nothing of my life” (III.42). Nora’s entire life, she just moves from one man’s house to another; being told who to be and what to do. These men’s expectations, of her being the perky, innocent daughter, mother, and wife, wronged her. Because of her father and her husband, she acts a part, instead of finding the person she truly is and wants to be. Because of this, she has, thus far, wasted away her life, “made nothing of it.”
Again, we see a similar situation with Aristotle in Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe. Aristotle’s mother scolds him for not being able to explain his thoughts or actions, and he writes, “I had a feeling there was something wrong with me. I guess I was a mystery even to myself” (Saenz 134) Ari is plagued with a constant state of confusion about his identity; because he does not know who he is, he has no reason to live. Without a goal to work towards, he has no purpose or meaning behind his actions, which makes his believe there is something wrong with him. It is evident in Amy Tan’s “Fish Cheeks” why a muddled sense of identity can cause shame and be harmful. In “Fish Cheeks,” a young Amy’s American crush comes over for Christmas dinner with the traditional Chinese Tan family. Amy spends the whole night in a state of embarrassment of her family’s customs; licking their chopsticks, eating tofu, fungus, and squid, and even offering Amy a fisheye to eat (Tan). After her crush’s family leaves, Amy’s mother tells her, “You want to be the same as American girls on the outside… But inside you must always be Chinese. You must be proud you are different. Your only shame is to have shame’” (Tan). Amy tries to hide part of who she is, because she feels ashamed. This shame hurts her family; they made her favorite foods to try and make her happy, and were met with shame and denial from Amy. She lacks a way to intersect two facets of her identity; deciding to be embarrassed of who she is. These three people show us that a weak sense of identity harms one’s psyche, as well as the people around us.
To combat the harm a weak sense of identity can cause, one must find their identity, which not only gives a meaning and purpose to one’s life, but also makes one a healthier and happier person overall. Dr. Jane Kroger, a professor of Developmental Psychological at the University of Tromso, writes in her book, Identity Development: Adolescence Through Adulthood, “Investigations have shown identity-achieved individuals to use more adaptive defense mechanisms (adaptive narcissism, internal loss of control) and to have high levels of ego developments, personal autonomy, and self esteem” (Kroger 104). People with a strong sense of who they are develop better social skills and possess a healthier psyche. Walt Whitman, a 19th century poet, demonstrates this in his book. Song of Myself. In poem 1, he discusses relaxing where he was born and raised, and writes, “I celebrate myself, and sing myself/ And what I assume you shall assume/ For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you” (Whitman 1.1-3). Whitman shows us his well-developed sense of ego and individuality through celebration and loving who he is. Whitman demonstrates one of the many benefits of a strong identity; self love and acceptance. When we not only accept, but celebrate, who we are, it helps us make a path to what we want to do and how we want to be.
In Chimamanda Adichie’s talk, “The Danger of a Single Story”, she defines a single story as “show[ing] a people as one thing, as only one thing, over and over again, and that is what they become” (Adichie). A single story is how others identify us, rather than how we identify ourselves; people that only see one individual piece, instead of looking at the entire puzzle of who we are. The danger of a single story is evident in Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, a story which explores the limitations women face of identity and life in the 19th century. When the protagonist’s husband, Torvald, tells his wife, Nora, that her only purpose is that of being a wife and mother, she responds with,
I believe that before all else I am a human being, just as much as you are- or at least that I should try to become one. I know that most people agree with you, Torvald, and that they say so in books. But henceforth I can't be satisfied with what most people say, and what is in books. I must think things out for myself, and try to get clear about them. (Ibsen III.43)
A single story threatens Nora her entire life: that because she is a woman, her only purpose is that of being a wife and a mother. She conformed to this ideal for years, and finally rejects this idea; she craves to find another meaning for herself, to not be only one story. We see the same concept in the novel Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe, when Aristotle’s mother is forcing Aristotle to volunteer for a charity event, he says,“I hated being volunteered. The problem with my life was that it was someone else's idea” (Sáenz 8). Both of these characters face a dilemma; other people have one view of them, but they have no view of themselves. They both want, and need, to find a purpose, instead of being the single story others view them as. Aristotle and Nora show us the dangers of the single story: that when we conform to the view others have of us, we have no way to see who we truly are, and what our purpose is. Single stories narrow our identity, thus making who we are one facet of who we should be.
Instead of succumbing to the single story, we must fight against this. Abdur Rahman Sahin, an Assistant Professor of English at Khulna University, and Rizwan-ul Huq, an English professor at Bangladesh University Dhaka, discuss Nora departing from the life that Torvald and her Father have chosen from her, to find who she is outside of what men tell her to be. They assert, “Nora consciously went through a self-changing metamorphosis, a necessity that we can ever ignore, an essentiality that came without any prior preparation, a fateful event that transfigured everything within the character” (Huq, Sahim 7). A single story defines Nora from the day she was born. Upon realizing this, she rebels against the life that laid out for her, instead of submitting. She shows us that it is never too late to redefine who we are at our very core: what we enjoy, what we crave to do with our lives, what makes us tick. Mahmoud Darwish also discusses defy the single story in his poem “Passport”. This piece explores his feelings when he moves from his home country to America, focusing on the idea of a passport. He rejects the notion that a single piece of paper can define who he is; the speaker proclaims he is, “Stripped of [his] name and identity” [Darwish 20]. Darwish wants to be known for all the parts of his identity, not just his home country. Just as Nora pushes aside being a mother and wife, the story that defines her, Darwish pushes aside his passport, the story that defines him. They both decide that the single story is not enough; they are both so much more.
In essence, identity gives humans a reason to wake up in the mornings to live their lives, and the single story does harm by making one focus on only one aspect of who one is. The first step is forming a strong identity is rejecting the single story. Once we realize that we are being subjected to the single story narrative, like Nora, we must discover all the aspects that make us who we are, and show them off to the world. There are many ways to discovering our true identity: figuring out what we value in others, materials, and yourself, recognizing the activities we enjoy to partake in, and learning what makes us unique. The journey to forming a strong sense of identity is different for everyone, and can be difficult, but it only leads to a well-balanced and happy life.
Without a sense of identity, one’s life has no meaning or purpose, which can hurt oneself and others. In Ibsen’s work, A Doll’s House, when Nora argues to Torvald why she needs to leave him and make a new life, she contends, “I have been performing tricks for you, Torvald. That’s how I’ve survived. You wanted it like that. You and Papa have done me a great wrong. It’s because of you I’ve made nothing of my life” (III.42). Nora’s entire life, she just moves from one man’s house to another; being told who to be and what to do. These men’s expectations, of her being the perky, innocent daughter, mother, and wife, wronged her. Because of her father and her husband, she acts a part, instead of finding the person she truly is and wants to be. Because of this, she has, thus far, wasted away her life, “made nothing of it.”
Again, we see a similar situation with Aristotle in Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe. Aristotle’s mother scolds him for not being able to explain his thoughts or actions, and he writes, “I had a feeling there was something wrong with me. I guess I was a mystery even to myself” (Saenz 134) Ari is plagued with a constant state of confusion about his identity; because he does not know who he is, he has no reason to live. Without a goal to work towards, he has no purpose or meaning behind his actions, which makes his believe there is something wrong with him. It is evident in Amy Tan’s “Fish Cheeks” why a muddled sense of identity can cause shame and be harmful. In “Fish Cheeks,” a young Amy’s American crush comes over for Christmas dinner with the traditional Chinese Tan family. Amy spends the whole night in a state of embarrassment of her family’s customs; licking their chopsticks, eating tofu, fungus, and squid, and even offering Amy a fisheye to eat (Tan). After her crush’s family leaves, Amy’s mother tells her, “You want to be the same as American girls on the outside… But inside you must always be Chinese. You must be proud you are different. Your only shame is to have shame’” (Tan). Amy tries to hide part of who she is, because she feels ashamed. This shame hurts her family; they made her favorite foods to try and make her happy, and were met with shame and denial from Amy. She lacks a way to intersect two facets of her identity; deciding to be embarrassed of who she is. These three people show us that a weak sense of identity harms one’s psyche, as well as the people around us.
To combat the harm a weak sense of identity can cause, one must find their identity, which not only gives a meaning and purpose to one’s life, but also makes one a healthier and happier person overall. Dr. Jane Kroger, a professor of Developmental Psychological at the University of Tromso, writes in her book, Identity Development: Adolescence Through Adulthood, “Investigations have shown identity-achieved individuals to use more adaptive defense mechanisms (adaptive narcissism, internal loss of control) and to have high levels of ego developments, personal autonomy, and self esteem” (Kroger 104). People with a strong sense of who they are develop better social skills and possess a healthier psyche. Walt Whitman, a 19th century poet, demonstrates this in his book. Song of Myself. In poem 1, he discusses relaxing where he was born and raised, and writes, “I celebrate myself, and sing myself/ And what I assume you shall assume/ For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you” (Whitman 1.1-3). Whitman shows us his well-developed sense of ego and individuality through celebration and loving who he is. Whitman demonstrates one of the many benefits of a strong identity; self love and acceptance. When we not only accept, but celebrate, who we are, it helps us make a path to what we want to do and how we want to be.
In Chimamanda Adichie’s talk, “The Danger of a Single Story”, she defines a single story as “show[ing] a people as one thing, as only one thing, over and over again, and that is what they become” (Adichie). A single story is how others identify us, rather than how we identify ourselves; people that only see one individual piece, instead of looking at the entire puzzle of who we are. The danger of a single story is evident in Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, a story which explores the limitations women face of identity and life in the 19th century. When the protagonist’s husband, Torvald, tells his wife, Nora, that her only purpose is that of being a wife and mother, she responds with,
I believe that before all else I am a human being, just as much as you are- or at least that I should try to become one. I know that most people agree with you, Torvald, and that they say so in books. But henceforth I can't be satisfied with what most people say, and what is in books. I must think things out for myself, and try to get clear about them. (Ibsen III.43)
A single story threatens Nora her entire life: that because she is a woman, her only purpose is that of being a wife and a mother. She conformed to this ideal for years, and finally rejects this idea; she craves to find another meaning for herself, to not be only one story. We see the same concept in the novel Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe, when Aristotle’s mother is forcing Aristotle to volunteer for a charity event, he says,“I hated being volunteered. The problem with my life was that it was someone else's idea” (Sáenz 8). Both of these characters face a dilemma; other people have one view of them, but they have no view of themselves. They both want, and need, to find a purpose, instead of being the single story others view them as. Aristotle and Nora show us the dangers of the single story: that when we conform to the view others have of us, we have no way to see who we truly are, and what our purpose is. Single stories narrow our identity, thus making who we are one facet of who we should be.
Instead of succumbing to the single story, we must fight against this. Abdur Rahman Sahin, an Assistant Professor of English at Khulna University, and Rizwan-ul Huq, an English professor at Bangladesh University Dhaka, discuss Nora departing from the life that Torvald and her Father have chosen from her, to find who she is outside of what men tell her to be. They assert, “Nora consciously went through a self-changing metamorphosis, a necessity that we can ever ignore, an essentiality that came without any prior preparation, a fateful event that transfigured everything within the character” (Huq, Sahim 7). A single story defines Nora from the day she was born. Upon realizing this, she rebels against the life that laid out for her, instead of submitting. She shows us that it is never too late to redefine who we are at our very core: what we enjoy, what we crave to do with our lives, what makes us tick. Mahmoud Darwish also discusses defy the single story in his poem “Passport”. This piece explores his feelings when he moves from his home country to America, focusing on the idea of a passport. He rejects the notion that a single piece of paper can define who he is; the speaker proclaims he is, “Stripped of [his] name and identity” [Darwish 20]. Darwish wants to be known for all the parts of his identity, not just his home country. Just as Nora pushes aside being a mother and wife, the story that defines her, Darwish pushes aside his passport, the story that defines him. They both decide that the single story is not enough; they are both so much more.
In essence, identity gives humans a reason to wake up in the mornings to live their lives, and the single story does harm by making one focus on only one aspect of who one is. The first step is forming a strong identity is rejecting the single story. Once we realize that we are being subjected to the single story narrative, like Nora, we must discover all the aspects that make us who we are, and show them off to the world. There are many ways to discovering our true identity: figuring out what we value in others, materials, and yourself, recognizing the activities we enjoy to partake in, and learning what makes us unique. The journey to forming a strong sense of identity is different for everyone, and can be difficult, but it only leads to a well-balanced and happy life.
Folktales Are More Important Than You Think
John Bruce
Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once said the following: “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist” (“Quotes About Amorality”). This is also where philosopher John Locke stood on morality when he proposed the idea of “tabula rasa” meaning blank slate. First, some clarity for specific terms are needed. Moral values serve as core ideas or axioms for each culture. Meaning simply that morals are the basis for all rules, laws, and mores. The concept of good and evil often get muddled as well, but for the purposes of this research, good and evil and right and wrong will be separated. To be good is simply to do unto others what you would want done unto yourself and to be evil is the antithesis of being good. Right and wrong is more culturally different. For example, consider for a moment a white plantation owner in Antebellum era Southern United States. They own slaves because that is what is widely accepted at the time. It is an evil action, because they would not want to be chained, beaten, tortured, and forced to work without wage, clothing, or benefits, but it was, for the time, the right action. To naysayers, consider the following argument. Harriet Tubman freed many people; therefore, she did good deeds. However, what she did regarding the Underground Railroad was punishable by law and therefore, wrong. The moral dogma during this time was that white skin was superior to black skin. Again, to naysayers, remember that black people were considered under white people, so the opposite was true. From this argument, one can deduce that an action can be both evil and right such as slavery, or good and wrong such as the case of Harriet Tubman and the Underground Railroad meaning that right and wrong correspond to whether something is permissible or forbidden in a society. This leads to the question: If morals are not objective, what purpose do morals have? Because humans are born amoral, morality must be taught; therefore, cultures create stories and fables to impart their morality onto others so that societies and civilizations will not crumble.
Maxine Hong Kingston recalls the time her mother told her about a long-lost aunt that went against the cultural grain and was persecuted for it. She remembers being genuinely terrified by the description of what the villagers did to her father’s house. At the end of her retelling of the story, she looks back on the message her mother left her with. “‘Don't humiliate us. You wouldn't like to be forgotten as if you had never been born. The villagers are watchful.” Whenever she had to warn us about life, my mother told stories that ran like this one, a story to grow up on” (Kingston). The author’s mother explicitly commands and warns the, then, girl to be careful as she might bring shame upon the family. Clearly, shame and saving face is a cultural more that is held in high esteem in this society. Her mother threatens her and scares her by saying that she would not be remembered if she did not take this to heart. Kingston even acknowledges the impact it had on her life in the same passage by commenting on its resonance with her during her life. In that same part of the excerpt, she explains that it’s a story on which she grew up. This story was reinforced over time as, so often, fairy tales and fables are. This is one example of a concept similar to the idea in the paragraph above. One can also witness cultural values being forced upon someone in “The Problem of Old Harjo”, a short story by John M. Oskinson. In the story, a Christian missionary visits a polygamous Native American man who wants to convert. Miss Evans, the missionary asks “Harjo, you must have only one wife when you come into our church. Can't you give up one of these women?” (Oskinson 238). A Christian woman is asking a man who has had no experience with Christianity prior to this to condemn one of his wives to a life of poverty. Harjo didn’t think it was wrong or evil to take two wives while a religious person did. This shows, rather explicitly, that cultural and even religious relativism exists.
Cultural relativism is a moral ideology revolving around the differences between cultures and arguing that morals are not inherent tendencies, but instead, they are influenced by cultures. Jesse Prinz poses the notion of relativism, examples, and its importance in the morality debate. He poses the following in his article “Morality is a Culturally Conditioned Response” for the magazine Philosophy Now. “One group’s good can be another group’s evil…. consider blood sports, such as those practiced in Roman amphitheaters, in which thousands of excited fans watched as human beings engaged in mortal combat…. Many societies have also practiced extreme forms of public torture and execution, as was the case in Europe before the 18th century. And there are cultures that engage in painful forms of body modification, such as scarification, genital infibulation, or footbinding – a practice that lasted in China for 1,000 years and involved the deliberate and excruciating crippling of young girls” (Prinz). When thinking of cultures that glorify killing, most tend to think of religious extremist or headhunting tribes in nonindustrialized parts of the world, but most Western people don’t often recall Roman gladiator fighting. There are also many more recent examples of Anglo glorification of murder. Bear-baiting was a common recreation amongst 16th and 17th century English people. During the sport, there would be a person who would go in and torment the bear until something happened with the person inside or another animal. Shakespeare wrote about it in his comedies showing that not only was it widely accepted, it was a form of humor and leisure. As mentioned above, Europeans also publicly tortured and ridiculed others for their crimes. The late 17th century Salem Witch Trials saw people being publicly hung or burned. This leads well into the concept of right and wrong and how it varies in different cultures. Lance Morrow, in his 1991 article “Evil” in Time, spoke indirectly on cultural relativism. In one portion of the article, the author gives a clear definition of evil and uses Nazi Germany as an example. “Evil is anyone outside the tribe. Evil works by dehumanizing the Other. A perverse, efficient logic: identifying others as evil justifies all further evil against them. A man may kill a snake without compunction. The snake is an evil thing, has evil designs, is a different order of being. Thus: an "Aryan" could kill a Jew, could make an elaborate bureaucratic program of killing Jews” (Morrow). He reinforces the idea of relativism by using an analogy of a man killing a snake being the same as a group of people killing another group of people just because they are different. Later in the excerpt, he gives a historical example of this happening with the systematic and carefully executed elimination of Jewish people in Nazi Germany. Though that is evil at an extreme level, at that time in that place, it was widely accepted and was illegal and wrong to harbor Jewish people from the government. To Lance Morrow and many other relativists, morality is not inherent like some objectivists believe.
Mitchell Silver, a self-proclaimed moral objectivist, claims that moral objectivity revolves around whether or not a certain action is permissible and the permissibility rules that surround that action. In his article “Our Morality: A Defense of Moral Objectivism” in Philosophy Now, he claims that “The assertion of a robust moral relativism means adopting a perspective from which all permissibility rules are viewed as equally valid” (Silver). The author seems as though he is invalidating all moral values without recognizing his own follies. As has been argued and supported in previous paragraphs, all cultures at one point or another have experienced what the majority of the Anglo Western world would consider immoral. Silver’s place is not to judge other societies for their moral beliefs, for that is judging their culture which this man has no right to do. Aside from moral objectivism, a common defense against moral relativism is the idea that with this philosophy, Hitler’s actions were justified because all cultures are right. Where this arguments follies lie, however, is not with moral relativism. Instead, it is with eugenics, social darwinism, and the political structure he used to oppress others. Moral relativism also does not condone murderous tyranny because those sort of self destructive morals don’t last. If a couple were to teach their kids to be ruthless murderers, then either the parents or the children would be killed eventually.
When all is said and done, morals are not the difference between good and evil, or right and wrong. It is, instead, the very foundations of the world’s varying cultures. These moral values are important to humans because we need them to form societies. We need culture and society to function as a species and laws are the basis of these laws. Humans are inherently amoral until they are taught by their culture, religions, or parents who were often taught by the same culture or religion about what is right and what is wrong. So, next time you’re thinking about whether or not to do something morally grey, remember that fairy tale or fable you read when you were a kid and consider what your culture might be trying to teach you.
Maxine Hong Kingston recalls the time her mother told her about a long-lost aunt that went against the cultural grain and was persecuted for it. She remembers being genuinely terrified by the description of what the villagers did to her father’s house. At the end of her retelling of the story, she looks back on the message her mother left her with. “‘Don't humiliate us. You wouldn't like to be forgotten as if you had never been born. The villagers are watchful.” Whenever she had to warn us about life, my mother told stories that ran like this one, a story to grow up on” (Kingston). The author’s mother explicitly commands and warns the, then, girl to be careful as she might bring shame upon the family. Clearly, shame and saving face is a cultural more that is held in high esteem in this society. Her mother threatens her and scares her by saying that she would not be remembered if she did not take this to heart. Kingston even acknowledges the impact it had on her life in the same passage by commenting on its resonance with her during her life. In that same part of the excerpt, she explains that it’s a story on which she grew up. This story was reinforced over time as, so often, fairy tales and fables are. This is one example of a concept similar to the idea in the paragraph above. One can also witness cultural values being forced upon someone in “The Problem of Old Harjo”, a short story by John M. Oskinson. In the story, a Christian missionary visits a polygamous Native American man who wants to convert. Miss Evans, the missionary asks “Harjo, you must have only one wife when you come into our church. Can't you give up one of these women?” (Oskinson 238). A Christian woman is asking a man who has had no experience with Christianity prior to this to condemn one of his wives to a life of poverty. Harjo didn’t think it was wrong or evil to take two wives while a religious person did. This shows, rather explicitly, that cultural and even religious relativism exists.
Cultural relativism is a moral ideology revolving around the differences between cultures and arguing that morals are not inherent tendencies, but instead, they are influenced by cultures. Jesse Prinz poses the notion of relativism, examples, and its importance in the morality debate. He poses the following in his article “Morality is a Culturally Conditioned Response” for the magazine Philosophy Now. “One group’s good can be another group’s evil…. consider blood sports, such as those practiced in Roman amphitheaters, in which thousands of excited fans watched as human beings engaged in mortal combat…. Many societies have also practiced extreme forms of public torture and execution, as was the case in Europe before the 18th century. And there are cultures that engage in painful forms of body modification, such as scarification, genital infibulation, or footbinding – a practice that lasted in China for 1,000 years and involved the deliberate and excruciating crippling of young girls” (Prinz). When thinking of cultures that glorify killing, most tend to think of religious extremist or headhunting tribes in nonindustrialized parts of the world, but most Western people don’t often recall Roman gladiator fighting. There are also many more recent examples of Anglo glorification of murder. Bear-baiting was a common recreation amongst 16th and 17th century English people. During the sport, there would be a person who would go in and torment the bear until something happened with the person inside or another animal. Shakespeare wrote about it in his comedies showing that not only was it widely accepted, it was a form of humor and leisure. As mentioned above, Europeans also publicly tortured and ridiculed others for their crimes. The late 17th century Salem Witch Trials saw people being publicly hung or burned. This leads well into the concept of right and wrong and how it varies in different cultures. Lance Morrow, in his 1991 article “Evil” in Time, spoke indirectly on cultural relativism. In one portion of the article, the author gives a clear definition of evil and uses Nazi Germany as an example. “Evil is anyone outside the tribe. Evil works by dehumanizing the Other. A perverse, efficient logic: identifying others as evil justifies all further evil against them. A man may kill a snake without compunction. The snake is an evil thing, has evil designs, is a different order of being. Thus: an "Aryan" could kill a Jew, could make an elaborate bureaucratic program of killing Jews” (Morrow). He reinforces the idea of relativism by using an analogy of a man killing a snake being the same as a group of people killing another group of people just because they are different. Later in the excerpt, he gives a historical example of this happening with the systematic and carefully executed elimination of Jewish people in Nazi Germany. Though that is evil at an extreme level, at that time in that place, it was widely accepted and was illegal and wrong to harbor Jewish people from the government. To Lance Morrow and many other relativists, morality is not inherent like some objectivists believe.
Mitchell Silver, a self-proclaimed moral objectivist, claims that moral objectivity revolves around whether or not a certain action is permissible and the permissibility rules that surround that action. In his article “Our Morality: A Defense of Moral Objectivism” in Philosophy Now, he claims that “The assertion of a robust moral relativism means adopting a perspective from which all permissibility rules are viewed as equally valid” (Silver). The author seems as though he is invalidating all moral values without recognizing his own follies. As has been argued and supported in previous paragraphs, all cultures at one point or another have experienced what the majority of the Anglo Western world would consider immoral. Silver’s place is not to judge other societies for their moral beliefs, for that is judging their culture which this man has no right to do. Aside from moral objectivism, a common defense against moral relativism is the idea that with this philosophy, Hitler’s actions were justified because all cultures are right. Where this arguments follies lie, however, is not with moral relativism. Instead, it is with eugenics, social darwinism, and the political structure he used to oppress others. Moral relativism also does not condone murderous tyranny because those sort of self destructive morals don’t last. If a couple were to teach their kids to be ruthless murderers, then either the parents or the children would be killed eventually.
When all is said and done, morals are not the difference between good and evil, or right and wrong. It is, instead, the very foundations of the world’s varying cultures. These moral values are important to humans because we need them to form societies. We need culture and society to function as a species and laws are the basis of these laws. Humans are inherently amoral until they are taught by their culture, religions, or parents who were often taught by the same culture or religion about what is right and what is wrong. So, next time you’re thinking about whether or not to do something morally grey, remember that fairy tale or fable you read when you were a kid and consider what your culture might be trying to teach you.
The perks of being a wallflower: There are none
Cameron Tobin
Alright, quick backstory as to why I wrote this. So, I had to read The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky for english, and I utterly despised it. I’m just here to rant on why the book is so horrid. So read on, and I’ll dive into why this book is so wrongfully acclaimed and doesn’t even deserve a movie (which I have not seen yet, nor do I want to see judging from how horrendous the book is) made after it.
SUMMARIZING THE STORY
A quick summarization of the book is that a high schooler named Charlie writes letters to someone we don’t know the name of and Charlie doesn’t know personally at all. Past that… It’s a walk in the swamp. It’s just day to day recollections of Charlie’s life.
THE PLOT: THE KEY TO A GOOD BOOK
There is none. There is only one plot point to the story, one twist if you will; apparently Charlie’s aunt had sexually molested him when he was young, he never knew it and his mind has been hiding this fact from him for his whole life. While that is an interesting plot point, how it affects Charlie only begins in the epilogue. Yes, after sitting through 200+ pages of an utter trudge through the empty plot, you get one, the only one, plot point at the literal end of the book. Chbosky must not realize the huge mistake he has made here. I could’ve skipped 200 pages of the book and find myself at a subpar short story, but at least I wouldn’t have to read 200 pages of nothing!
DRIVING THE READER: MAKING A COMPELLING PLOT
Ignoring the poor plot, the reader needs to be able to drive themselves to read the book, not a teacher that makes a schedule for how much they should be reading. Chbosky fails at entertaining the reader to the point that exactly that happens, the dependency of a schedule to read the book. This occured to me, I wasn’t interested in the story whatsoever until the epilogue when what Charlie’s aunt did to him is brought up. This shouldn’t be the case, the writer is meant to drive the reader to continue to read, not an assignment.
THE CHARACTERS: A FINE COMPLEMENT TO THE PLOT
Everyone, but Charlie has personality; I’ll put it flat as that. The key part to making a protagonist that people like, is to put personality into them. Chbosky hasn’t done that. Heck, every secondary or minor character that is in the story has more personality than Charlie. This isn’t supposed to happen in books! Charlie is opposite of the general rule of characterizing your protagonists! How this was published, I will never know, but I do know one thing. Chbosky made the terrible, one note character design of Charlie, that “one note” of him being his mental health issues arised throughout the book.
THE WORLD: WHERE THE CHARACTERS LIVE
There's not much here. All we know is that it takes place in the 1990s. We don’t know where he lives specifically, we aren’t given any problems that influence world, we have nothing except his recollections that leave nothing to the world - outside of some ‘90s things that aren’t even described that well either. Whether purposeful or not, this isn’t meant to occur in books, at least not in good ones.
THE VERDICT: SHOULD YOU READ IT?
The Perks of Being a Wallflower is not a good book whatsoever, and I don’t recommend reading it whatsoever. However, as much as I don’t recommend this book, if you haven’t not enjoyed a book, go ahead and give The Perks of being a Wallflower a read, at least you’ll have an example for later down the line.
SUMMARIZING THE STORY
A quick summarization of the book is that a high schooler named Charlie writes letters to someone we don’t know the name of and Charlie doesn’t know personally at all. Past that… It’s a walk in the swamp. It’s just day to day recollections of Charlie’s life.
THE PLOT: THE KEY TO A GOOD BOOK
There is none. There is only one plot point to the story, one twist if you will; apparently Charlie’s aunt had sexually molested him when he was young, he never knew it and his mind has been hiding this fact from him for his whole life. While that is an interesting plot point, how it affects Charlie only begins in the epilogue. Yes, after sitting through 200+ pages of an utter trudge through the empty plot, you get one, the only one, plot point at the literal end of the book. Chbosky must not realize the huge mistake he has made here. I could’ve skipped 200 pages of the book and find myself at a subpar short story, but at least I wouldn’t have to read 200 pages of nothing!
DRIVING THE READER: MAKING A COMPELLING PLOT
Ignoring the poor plot, the reader needs to be able to drive themselves to read the book, not a teacher that makes a schedule for how much they should be reading. Chbosky fails at entertaining the reader to the point that exactly that happens, the dependency of a schedule to read the book. This occured to me, I wasn’t interested in the story whatsoever until the epilogue when what Charlie’s aunt did to him is brought up. This shouldn’t be the case, the writer is meant to drive the reader to continue to read, not an assignment.
THE CHARACTERS: A FINE COMPLEMENT TO THE PLOT
Everyone, but Charlie has personality; I’ll put it flat as that. The key part to making a protagonist that people like, is to put personality into them. Chbosky hasn’t done that. Heck, every secondary or minor character that is in the story has more personality than Charlie. This isn’t supposed to happen in books! Charlie is opposite of the general rule of characterizing your protagonists! How this was published, I will never know, but I do know one thing. Chbosky made the terrible, one note character design of Charlie, that “one note” of him being his mental health issues arised throughout the book.
THE WORLD: WHERE THE CHARACTERS LIVE
There's not much here. All we know is that it takes place in the 1990s. We don’t know where he lives specifically, we aren’t given any problems that influence world, we have nothing except his recollections that leave nothing to the world - outside of some ‘90s things that aren’t even described that well either. Whether purposeful or not, this isn’t meant to occur in books, at least not in good ones.
THE VERDICT: SHOULD YOU READ IT?
The Perks of Being a Wallflower is not a good book whatsoever, and I don’t recommend reading it whatsoever. However, as much as I don’t recommend this book, if you haven’t not enjoyed a book, go ahead and give The Perks of being a Wallflower a read, at least you’ll have an example for later down the line.
The V in Villain is now the V in Voldemort
Tiaam Majzoubi
If Harry Potter is the Boy-Who-Lived then Voldemort is the man who never dies. In J.K. Rowling’s novel, Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Stone, a young boy enters a world of magic and finds himself pitted against the most evil dark wizard of all time. Known to most of the wizarding world as “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named” or “You-Know-Who,” this sinister adversary works from the shadows throughout most of the novel in order to exact his revenge. Despite only being a minor presence in the novel, Voldemort is inarguably the perfect archetypal villain as he meets all the necessary criteria, especially these attributes: working against the hero, not revealing his identity until the end, and ultimately being defeated.
For instance, Voldemort is an archetypical villain because he continuously works against the hero of the novel, Harry Potter. Readers eventually learn the motive behind Voldemort’s schemes against Harry when it is divulged that “You- Know-Who [Voldemort] killed ‘em [Harry’s parents]… he tried to kill you [Harry] too… No one ever lived after he decided ter kill em’, no one except you, and he'd killed some o’ the best witches an’ wizards of the age… an’ you was only a baby, an’ you lived. ” (Rowling 55-56). It is also revealed that no one knows precisely why Harry was targeted by Voldemort nearly 11 years ago, and although Voldemort was defeated long before the events in Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Stone, people still fear his return.
The fears of the wizarding world are proven to be entirely valid, as Harry quickly becomes a target during his school year when Voldemort returns and fulfills the second criteria of an archetypal villain by constantly seeking to undermine him. Using Professor Quirrell as an underling to carry out his orders, Voldemort nearly kills Harry during a quidditch match by jinxing his broom to throw him off. Quirrell later discloses, “Your friend Miss Granger accidentally knocked me over as she rushed to set fire to Snape at that quidditch match… another few seconds and I’d have got you off that broom” (Rowling 288-289). Of course, Harry is unaware at this point that Quirrell is merely a puppet and Voldemort is the true villain pulling the strings.
Yet Voldemort does not remain undiscovered for long, as he embodies the third characteristic of an archetypical villain by revealing himself in the very last chapter of the novel. As described by Harry after Quirrell unwraps the covering on his head, “where there should've been a back to Quirrell's head, there was a face, the most terrible face Harry had ever seen” (Rowling 293). This face was none other than Voldemort’s, who was now forced to share a body with Quirrell after being defeated by Harry all those years ago. Furthermore, Voldemort describes himself as a being reduced to “mere shadow and vapor,” who has a form only when it is possible to “share another’s body” (Rowling 293). Consequently, as presented by Mariam Kushkaki in her dissertation, “Unmasking the Villain: A Reconstruction of The Villain Archetype in Popular Culture,” Voldemort qualifies as an archetypical villain because he consistently plots to achieve immortality by extracting the Elixir of Life from the Sorcerer's Stone, therefore striving to disrupt the status quo of the natural order of life (Kushkaki 14).
However, Voldemort unwittingly fulfills the final criteria of an archetypical villain by ultimately being defeated by Harry (the hero) at the end of Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Stone. When Voldemort attempts to force Harry to retrieve the Stone, Harry defends himself by grabbing onto Quirrell, which destroys Quirrell’s body and expels Voldemort. Dumbledore [the headmaster of Harry’s wizard school] later discloses to Harry, “Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He didn’t realize that love as powerful as your mother’s for you leaves its own mark” (Rowling 299). Thus, Dumbledore explains that Quirrell, “full of hatred, greed, and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you [Harry]” as the power of Harry’s mother’s love conquers the forces of Voldemort’s villainous evil (Rowling 299).
Moreover, an article by Scott T. Allison and George R. Goethals titled “Does the Villain‘s Journey Mirror the Hero’s Journey?” cites writer Christopher Vogler, who explains that “the paths of the two start on the opposite sides of the spectrum and converge toward ―one or more epic clashes...[in which] the villain‘s mastery is handed over to the hero after the villain is defeated” (Allison and Goethals 16). In this case, by defeating Voldemort, Harry was able to attain mastery over the trauma of his past.
Without a shadow of a doubt, Voldemort undeniably meets the expectation of a classic archetypical villain. Not only does he constantly work against Harry and cunningly endeavor to undermine him, but Voldemort also does not unveil himself as the villain until the very last minute (in more ways than one) before being defeated by the power of love. Truly, in a seemingly neverending line of fictional bad guys, Voldemort is a villain who stands above the rest.
For instance, Voldemort is an archetypical villain because he continuously works against the hero of the novel, Harry Potter. Readers eventually learn the motive behind Voldemort’s schemes against Harry when it is divulged that “You- Know-Who [Voldemort] killed ‘em [Harry’s parents]… he tried to kill you [Harry] too… No one ever lived after he decided ter kill em’, no one except you, and he'd killed some o’ the best witches an’ wizards of the age… an’ you was only a baby, an’ you lived. ” (Rowling 55-56). It is also revealed that no one knows precisely why Harry was targeted by Voldemort nearly 11 years ago, and although Voldemort was defeated long before the events in Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Stone, people still fear his return.
The fears of the wizarding world are proven to be entirely valid, as Harry quickly becomes a target during his school year when Voldemort returns and fulfills the second criteria of an archetypal villain by constantly seeking to undermine him. Using Professor Quirrell as an underling to carry out his orders, Voldemort nearly kills Harry during a quidditch match by jinxing his broom to throw him off. Quirrell later discloses, “Your friend Miss Granger accidentally knocked me over as she rushed to set fire to Snape at that quidditch match… another few seconds and I’d have got you off that broom” (Rowling 288-289). Of course, Harry is unaware at this point that Quirrell is merely a puppet and Voldemort is the true villain pulling the strings.
Yet Voldemort does not remain undiscovered for long, as he embodies the third characteristic of an archetypical villain by revealing himself in the very last chapter of the novel. As described by Harry after Quirrell unwraps the covering on his head, “where there should've been a back to Quirrell's head, there was a face, the most terrible face Harry had ever seen” (Rowling 293). This face was none other than Voldemort’s, who was now forced to share a body with Quirrell after being defeated by Harry all those years ago. Furthermore, Voldemort describes himself as a being reduced to “mere shadow and vapor,” who has a form only when it is possible to “share another’s body” (Rowling 293). Consequently, as presented by Mariam Kushkaki in her dissertation, “Unmasking the Villain: A Reconstruction of The Villain Archetype in Popular Culture,” Voldemort qualifies as an archetypical villain because he consistently plots to achieve immortality by extracting the Elixir of Life from the Sorcerer's Stone, therefore striving to disrupt the status quo of the natural order of life (Kushkaki 14).
However, Voldemort unwittingly fulfills the final criteria of an archetypical villain by ultimately being defeated by Harry (the hero) at the end of Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Stone. When Voldemort attempts to force Harry to retrieve the Stone, Harry defends himself by grabbing onto Quirrell, which destroys Quirrell’s body and expels Voldemort. Dumbledore [the headmaster of Harry’s wizard school] later discloses to Harry, “Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He didn’t realize that love as powerful as your mother’s for you leaves its own mark” (Rowling 299). Thus, Dumbledore explains that Quirrell, “full of hatred, greed, and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you [Harry]” as the power of Harry’s mother’s love conquers the forces of Voldemort’s villainous evil (Rowling 299).
Moreover, an article by Scott T. Allison and George R. Goethals titled “Does the Villain‘s Journey Mirror the Hero’s Journey?” cites writer Christopher Vogler, who explains that “the paths of the two start on the opposite sides of the spectrum and converge toward ―one or more epic clashes...[in which] the villain‘s mastery is handed over to the hero after the villain is defeated” (Allison and Goethals 16). In this case, by defeating Voldemort, Harry was able to attain mastery over the trauma of his past.
Without a shadow of a doubt, Voldemort undeniably meets the expectation of a classic archetypical villain. Not only does he constantly work against Harry and cunningly endeavor to undermine him, but Voldemort also does not unveil himself as the villain until the very last minute (in more ways than one) before being defeated by the power of love. Truly, in a seemingly neverending line of fictional bad guys, Voldemort is a villain who stands above the rest.
Works Cited
Allison, Scott T., and George R. Goethals. “Does the Villain‘s Journey Mirror the Hero‘s
Journey? Heroes: What They Do and Why We Need Them.” University of Richmond, 29
August 2014,
blog.richmond.edu/heroes/2014/08/29/does-the-villain’s-journey-mirror-the-hero’s-journ
ey, Accessed 2 March. 2017.
Kushkaki, Mariam. “Unmasking the Villain: A Reconstruction of The Villain Archetype in
Popular Culture.” Dissertation,
sdsu-dspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.10/4282/Kushkaki_Mariam.pdf?sequen
ce=1, San Diego State University, 2013.Web. Accessed 2 March. 2017.
Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. New York: Scholastic, 1997. Print.
Allison, Scott T., and George R. Goethals. “Does the Villain‘s Journey Mirror the Hero‘s
Journey? Heroes: What They Do and Why We Need Them.” University of Richmond, 29
August 2014,
blog.richmond.edu/heroes/2014/08/29/does-the-villain’s-journey-mirror-the-hero’s-journ
ey, Accessed 2 March. 2017.
Kushkaki, Mariam. “Unmasking the Villain: A Reconstruction of The Villain Archetype in
Popular Culture.” Dissertation,
sdsu-dspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.10/4282/Kushkaki_Mariam.pdf?sequen
ce=1, San Diego State University, 2013.Web. Accessed 2 March. 2017.
Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. New York: Scholastic, 1997. Print.
On Age
Alexandra Feller
I am 17 years old. People always say I look younger. Maybe because I don’t wear a lot of makeup. No, because even when I do wear makeup they say I look young. I never quite know what to say to that. Thank you? I just smile and nod.
Researchers finally figured out the cause of aging. Oxidation. Humans are the same as a rusty old pipe. Isn't that funny? The oxygen around us causes wrinkles, and it causes our bodies to grow “old.” In a way, we are like the San Francisco bridge. Painters start painting from one end of the bridge, and once they get to the other side they have to paint it all over again because the sea salt air is already causing erosion of the original side they started. Rust. Anti aging cream is like our paint. It helps keep the oxidation at bay.
Jokes on you. I guess I am just oxidizing slower.
The Trailblazer
By Emma Mora
When I think of my early childhood, one memory comes to mind: the rolls upon rolls of butcher paper my mom provided me with, and being consumed with filling them with drawings. I remember having fascinations with certain subjects—like a character or specific scene—and the overwhelming need to interpret them through my Crayolas. Even now, I find myself filling up my school notes and homework with little doodles. Telling stories through drawing has always been my favorite activity—so much that my parents once labeled me a “compulsive cartoonist.” When reflecting back, I realize drawing and creating has always been a part of me. However, it was not until recently I came to understand it was acceptable to acknowledge this and follow my own path.
As an individual growing up in a family of musicians, I was always around music, and that played a large role in my life. Many people encouraged me to nurture my musical potential so I could become a great musician like my dad and siblings. However, as a kid, music could never top bringing my imagination to life on paper.
When high school came around, I, like every other student, experienced the pressure of methodically planning a successful future. Even though my interests were different from my family’s, I still felt pressure to follow in my siblings’ footsteps. My brother and sister each left a grand legacy at their high schools as determined musicians, and their examples set a high bar I felt I was expected to meet. Additionally, several people in my life thought my siblings’ experience gave me an advantage: I had two living examples of how to succeed in music. For this reason, I began to believe my safest bet to “success” was through music. With big life decisions fast approaching, the pressure to choose a career intensified, and fear rooted itself inside me. The risks of defining my own life in art seemed destined to fail.
In an attempt to go where others were encouraging me, I pulled away from art. In my heart, I knew it was the wrong direction, but I instead told myself to follow the road more traveled. One afternoon, my mom made me clean out the accumulated stacks of papers in my storage armoire for the first time in years. This mundane chore turned into a reminiscing period when, amongst the stacks, I found my long-forgotten folder of drawings. Inside were folded-up butcher papers with my childhood attempts at facial profiles. This sparked a memory of my first realization that there were different ways to construe a face, and thus anything. This epiphany reflected itself all over the paper. I remembered the excitement of finally being able to give my characters the capacity to converse face to face after being limited to interacting side to side. New, evolving discoveries like this thrilled me to the point of not being able to put my crayons down for hours. With every new attempt, my drawings and stories developed across the butcher rolls. At that moment, I found myself nostalgically yearning for the days when art was my life. This was the beginning of a process which would direct me to learn something essential about myself: my happiness would only come by declaring my true passion and trail blazing my own life. My path towards art has been unrolling since I was little, like the unfurling butcher paper, each blank surface inspiring me to fill it up in my own way. Trailblazing the only way I know how.
As an individual growing up in a family of musicians, I was always around music, and that played a large role in my life. Many people encouraged me to nurture my musical potential so I could become a great musician like my dad and siblings. However, as a kid, music could never top bringing my imagination to life on paper.
When high school came around, I, like every other student, experienced the pressure of methodically planning a successful future. Even though my interests were different from my family’s, I still felt pressure to follow in my siblings’ footsteps. My brother and sister each left a grand legacy at their high schools as determined musicians, and their examples set a high bar I felt I was expected to meet. Additionally, several people in my life thought my siblings’ experience gave me an advantage: I had two living examples of how to succeed in music. For this reason, I began to believe my safest bet to “success” was through music. With big life decisions fast approaching, the pressure to choose a career intensified, and fear rooted itself inside me. The risks of defining my own life in art seemed destined to fail.
In an attempt to go where others were encouraging me, I pulled away from art. In my heart, I knew it was the wrong direction, but I instead told myself to follow the road more traveled. One afternoon, my mom made me clean out the accumulated stacks of papers in my storage armoire for the first time in years. This mundane chore turned into a reminiscing period when, amongst the stacks, I found my long-forgotten folder of drawings. Inside were folded-up butcher papers with my childhood attempts at facial profiles. This sparked a memory of my first realization that there were different ways to construe a face, and thus anything. This epiphany reflected itself all over the paper. I remembered the excitement of finally being able to give my characters the capacity to converse face to face after being limited to interacting side to side. New, evolving discoveries like this thrilled me to the point of not being able to put my crayons down for hours. With every new attempt, my drawings and stories developed across the butcher rolls. At that moment, I found myself nostalgically yearning for the days when art was my life. This was the beginning of a process which would direct me to learn something essential about myself: my happiness would only come by declaring my true passion and trail blazing my own life. My path towards art has been unrolling since I was little, like the unfurling butcher paper, each blank surface inspiring me to fill it up in my own way. Trailblazing the only way I know how.