The Blame Game

Every time I think or hear about how painful giving birth can be, I blame God for giving women this job. I've always thought that this was just Him being unfair, little did I know that it was actually the punishment women get for what happened with the forbidden fruit.

Having heard the story of Adam and Eve told in the way in which Eve took all the blame for so many times, I didn't see what's wrong with it until I read Amelia Lanier's "Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum". It provided a brand new perspective on the responsibility and guilt for what happened in the Garden of Eden. 

As a woman, Lanier argued that women should not "endure it all" (10) because Eve wasn't the only one who went against God's order. "Adam cannot be excused" for he, without hesitation, took the fruit that his wife gave him. He was "most to blame" because he didn't even face any temptation whereas Eve the woman - less powerful, knowledgeable, and significant than men - was tempted by the serpent. With greater power comes greater responsibility, with Adam as the "lord and king of all the earth" (7), how come he was not found as guilty, if not more, than Eve was?

I am not really a Christian, nor that I totally decline the religion. In fact, I've been raised in a Christian school since kindergarten. The stories, the prayers, and the hymns are nothing new, and I actually appreciate many of the Christian ideas of love and helping others.

However, there's something I never quite understand.

If the Bible teaches us to always forgive and to love our enemies, why didn't God forgive Adam and Eve for eating the fruit? Why did he expel them from the Garden of Eden? Why couldn't he love Satan?

Carpe Diem

"There was never a great genius without a touch of madness"

What is madness? In this world where we live in societies with many other people, the most important, normal, or "wise" thing to do is to follow what everybody else does. To do things that the majority doesn't do? That is "madness".

While a genius and a lunatic seem to be the opposite of each other, they share a common feature: both are unusual. Looking at all the geniuses in history: poets, painters, navigators, inventors, etc, what made them so special was that they did something new, something out of the norm.

We take electric lighting for granted nowadays because Thomas Edison made light bulbs so practical and easy for us to use, it would be like a nightmare if all the lights went out. But to people who lived in the era before light bulbs were invented, who lived with candles and fire for light all their lives, it'd be nonsense to think that there could be any other ways to get light. So, yes, scientists might had been called mad men when they were striving and failing and striving again to develop the use of electric light, but look at how that turned out - we can now enjoy one of the greatest inventions of history!

If we look at great artists like Picasso and Dali, geniuses without a doubt, we can see that their success really stem from their touch of madness, or what we call creativity. Picasso is famous for his portraits with distorted faces, where the nose goes up between the eyes and the mouth extends out of the face; Dali is a surrealist painter who loves to draw elongated and melting images. Certainly there were hints of madness that inspired the ridiculous yet remarkable ideas. But people whose artwork that are still world renowned after decades can't be complete lunatics, can they?

Are geniuses mad? Or is it simply us who are too ordinary to understand?

The Shepherd and His Dream Girl

Raleigh's "The Nymph's reply to the Shepherd" is a witty reply to Marlowe's poem "The Passionate Shepherd to His Love".

The shepherd in Marlowe's poem is very idealistic and hopeful towards the love he has for the girl. He makes many  promises and says that he can give her everything because if she accepts his love, they will "all the pleasures prove" (2). The beautiful imagery of nature like "beds of roses" (9) and "Melodious birds sing madrigals" (8), together with examples of materialistic luxury such as "a gown made of the finest wool" (13), creates an ideal picture of their future life, so as to attract the girl to "come live with [the shepherd] and be [his] love" (1).

On the other hand, the nymph in Raleigh's poem has a more mature and realistic view, and she has a counter for each of the shepherd's ideas. First off, she doubts the "truth in every shepherd's tongue" and questions his ability to fulfill all his promises. While the shepherd suggests sitting on rocks to watch the river flow and listen to the birds' songs, the nymph argues that "rivers rage" (6) and "rocks grow cold" (6). Regarding the luxurious gowns and bed offered, she replies that everything will "soon break, soon wither, soon forgotten" (15). Raleigh repeats many of Marlowe's images and ideas, but distort them through the length of time. This is to point out that beauty does not last, therefore all the promises on the perfect idyllic life will all vanishes with the wash of time. At last she leaves a vague hope for the shepherd, saying that if his "youth lasts" (21) and nothing ages, then happiness will last forever and they can be in love.

A shepherd's love story. If we could just add a little twist to it...