The person of Satan has long been one of great controversy. He might be imagined as the red cartoon with a pitchfork, long red tail, and horns. Others might say there is no Satan. To others, he is the ultimate enemy - a menace who will do anything possible to cause God pain. To John Milton, he seemed to be a curiosity, as is clear in his poem Paradise Lost. One might ask what Milton’s purpose was in writing such a descriptive account of Satan’s story, as he certainly took the time to create this epic tale. There must be a purpose.
Whatever his purpose, this epic tale shows a hero who causes much controversy among the critics. Some critics say that there is a definite push for us to feel pity for Satan as he seems to sink lower and lower into himself. Opposing critics argue that there is no real indication of this.
In the beginning of Paradise Lost, we feel a sense of defiance from Satan, which is expected, considering what he has so recently done:
“The infernal Serpent; he it was whose guile stirred up with envy and revenge, deceived the mother of mankind, what time his pride had cast him out from Heaven” (1.34-37).
Yet this defiance does not seem so complete as it might: “So spake the apostate Angel, though in pain vaunting aloud, but wracked with deep despair” (1.125-126). This seems to indicate that Satan, although certainly not repentant of the celestial fight, is regretful of all that has taken place. It also seems that he does his best to hide these regrets from his hierarchy of followers. This sign of weakness might cause someone to feel as though it is only right to pity Satan:
“Milton’s presentation of him (Satan) is a magnificent poetical achievement which engages the attention and excites the admiration of the reader. On the other hand, it may mean that the real being… is or ought to be an object of admiration and sympathy, conscious or unconscious, on the part of the poet or his readers of both” (Lewis 94).
This idea of sympathizing with God’s enemy is appalling to many. Lewis himself did not believe this to be Milton’s purpose, though he did point out, as in the afore text, that the way Milton evoked this reaction could have been an unconscious thing.
There are other critics believe that there is a clear attempt to discredit Satan in every sense:
“Any one of his ‘glorious’ speeches will suffice to show the false high style of Satan, dissembler and buffoon… A comic element is seen thus in his self deception; Milton is really so unsubtle that Satan becomes a caricature of the pompous braggart” (Shawcross 30+31).
Both sides of the argument are seen, here. Was Milton’s purpose to suggest pity for Satan or is there really no evidence of anything but malice? Surely Milton would have been clear; however, it is possible to look at Paradise Lost not as an absolute of either argument but actually a progression; Satan begins as a newly fallen angel, not fully evil, but he gradually evolves into the Satan whom we so easily recognize as a devil.
There is no real doubt that Satan is an evil being. He shows clear evidence of this throughout the entirety of Paradise Lost: “Seduce them to our party, that their God may prove their foe, and with repenting hand abolish his own works” (2.68-70). His clear purpose is to cause strife between God and His people, perhaps not so much to hurt Man but to hurt God through man. It is power that corrupts Satan, and much like Byron’s character Manfred, Satan defies the power of any authority but his own:
“While other creatures can forget their mission and live casually within the bounds established for them, Satan, God-obsessed, confronts his limits at every turn: every aspect of the crated order that he encounters provokes knowledge of his antagonism” (Toliver 56).
Contrary to his own character, however, Satan expects to be an authoritative figure to those angels who have followed him: “…Nor did they not perceive the evil plight in which they were, or the fierce pains not feel, yet to their General’s voice they soon obeyed Innumerable” (1.335-338).
Even though we never actually read a passage where Satan places himself, verbally, above the others, there is a clear leadership which they all respect. Perhaps it is because of his leadership in the war against Heaven or maybe they just fear him. Either way, there is very clearly Satan above the others: “Satan exalted sat, by merit raised to that bad eminence; and, from despair thus uplifted beyond hope, aspires beyond thus high, insatiate to pursue vain war in Heaven” (2.5-9). This authority never seems to waver.
The way that Satan regards his children is something that we can see change. When he first meets Sin and Death, he appears repulsed: “On the other side, incensed with indignation, Satan stood unterrified” (2. 707-709). His daughter has to explain to him how she, Sin, and their son, Death, came to be, since it appears that he does not remember.
This meeting could be seen as the turning point for Satan. Although he had certainly shown signs of what his nature was soon to be, it is in this passage that he really steps away from the all that was good and admits the will he has for his own life:
“Alone and without guide, half lost, I seek what readiest path leads where your gloomy bounds confine with Heaven… Direct my course: Directed, no mean recompense it brings to your behoof, if I that region lost, all usurpation thence expelled, reduce to her original darkness… and once more erect the standard there of ancient Night; yours be the advantage all, mine the revenge! (2.975-977+980-987).
By the end of Paradise Lost, Satan openly claims his children, even sending them to Heaven as representatives:
“Thus the Prince of Darkness answered glad: ‘Fair daughter, and thou, son, and grandchild both, high proof ye now have given to be the race of Satan (For I glory in the name Antagonist of Heaven’s Almighty King)’” (5.383-387).
He no longer repels Sin and Death but welcomes them to his legions, prepared to use them for his own glory and what he hopes will later be the downfall of God.
Satan only becomes worse. His actions, damnable from the start, become worse and worse. The hesitance to ruin the perfection and beauty he sees is shortened with each occurrence. In book four, there is still a great tension, as though Satan is still not quite sure of what evil he is capable. He continues to be confused by the transformation that has taken place: “Satan, now first enflamed with rage, came down… Now conscience wakes despair that slumbered, wakes up the bitter memory of what he was, what is, and what must be worse” (4. 9+23-26). This passage makes it quite apparent that Satan is recognizing his own degradation. This progression gives him unrest. Perhaps it is this that leads him to deny God as his creator:
“The Apostate… thus replied: ‘That we were formed, then, say’st thou? and the work of secondary hands, by task transferred from Father to his Son? Strange point and new! Doctrine which we know whence learnt; who saw when this creation was?’” (5.852-857).
This seems to say that we cannot just believe something because we are told it to be true. This quote is commented on by C.S. Lewis, who points out the absurdity of what is being said:
“If a creature is silly enough to try to prove that it was not created, what is more natural than for it to say, ‘Well, I wasn’t there to se it being done’? Yet what more futile, since in this admitting ignorance of its own beginnings it proves that those beginnings lay outside itself” (97+98).
Satan denouncing the creation of himself by God marks another decline in the progression downward. It is another way in which Satan tries to become his own deity, putting himself on the same level, if not above, God. He begins to use his abilities as an angel to his own advantage, which shocks the celestial angels: “ ‘O Heaven! That such resemblance of the Highest should yet remain, where faith and realty remain not’” (6. 114-116).
His wrongdoings provoke Michael, the archangel, into speaking against him, as they fight for honor: “ ‘Author of Evil, unknown till thy revolt, unnamed in Heaven, now plenteous, as thou seest, these acts of hateful strife - hateful to all, though heaviest, by just measure, on thyself and thy adherents’” (6.262-266). It is when Michael wounds Satan that he realizes he is not of the same ilk of God he so wished to be: “Shame to find himself not matchless, and his pride humbled by such rebuke, so far beneath his confidence to equal God in power” (6.341-344).
There is even evidence of a physical change. Satan is often described as he once was:
“ ‘Think not… thy shape the same, or undiminished brightness, to be known as when thou stood’st in Heaven upright and pure. That glory then, when thou no more wast good, departed from thee; and thou resembles now thy sin and place of doom obscure and foul’” (4.835-840).
We see, especially in book two, that Satan is described as glorious - a beautiful, magnificent thing to behold; yet, his appearance, as he uses it to deceive Eve, seems to become tinged with the evil that he is trying to give a foothold: “Thence up he flew, and on the Tree of Life… sat like a cormorant (Emphasis added), yet not true life thereby regained, but sat devising death to them who lived” (4.194-198). His descriptions are more evidently evil, and though his ability to follow through with his plan to ruin Man might falter, his intentions are never in doubt: “Back to the thicket slunk the guilty serpent” (9.784-785); however, we do notice that although he changes in the perception of the ethereal, Eve cannot see through his deception so easily:
“The Serpent wise, or not restrained as we are or not obeying, hath eaten of the fruit, and is become, not dead as we are threatened, but thence forth endued with human voice and human sense, reasoning to admiration and with me persuasively hath so prevailed” (9. 867-872).
Should we suppose that the human eyes cannot see through Satan‘s deception? No. It was not only Eve who did recognize him for what he was. The guards whom Satan confused also did not recognize him. They were unable to perceive the double meanings or to comprehend the way Satan twisted words to mean something other than they had been said to mean: “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?’” (Gen.3.1).
In Paradise Regained, we get a picture of Satan which is still deceiving and even more sinister:
“Now an ancient man in rural weeds, following, as seemed, the quest of some stray ewe, or withered sticks to gather, which might serve against winter’s day when winds blow keen, to warm him wet returned from field at eve, he saw approach, who first with curious eye perused him” (1.314-320).
There is this physical degradation that we see taking place, and not only us - the characters have also pointed it out. This is heavy evidence that there is a marked change in Satan that is worth taking the time to notice. If nothing else, the admiration he receives from Sin and Death should worry us: “Sin opening, who thus now to Death began: ‘O Son, why sit we here, each other viewing idly, while Satan, our great author, thrives in other worlds, and happier seat provides for us, his offspring dear?’” (10. 234-238).
Probably the greatest evidence that one might use to say that Satan has not developed is the way his emotions play out. In book four, he is clearly feeling bitter about his position compared to that of the other angels:
“I, therefore, I alone, first undertook to wing the desolate abyss, and spy this new-created World, whereof in Hell fame is not silent, here in hope to find better abode, and my afflicted Powers to settle here on Earth, or in mid Air; though for possession put to try once more what thou and thy gay legions dare against, whose easier business were to serve their Lord high up in Heaven, with songs to hymn his throne, and practiced distances to cringe, not fight” (935-945).
These words of bitterness are counted by another angel, who makes reference to Satan’s unrest while he was still welcome in Heaven: “And thou, sly hypocrite, who now wouldst seem Patron of liberty, who more than thou once fawned, and cringed, and servilely adored Heaven’s awful Monarch?” (4.957-960). This bitterness and anger seems to always hover, controlled as well as can be, beneath the surface of Satan’s every word and action. When he tempts Eve, it may not be so obvious in appearance, but the undertone of his words and actions cannot hide his true purpose: To destroy:
“Satan revives, collects his host, decides upon revenge, escapes upon revenge, escapes from Hell, ascends through Chaos, comes to the Universe, to the Earth, to Eden, to Paradise, to Adam and Eve. Each step brings him closer to his intended prey and heightens the sense of impending danger… His attack on Eve’s fancy has come to infect her will; we realize the Fall itself is imminent” (Ogden 316+320).
This sense of impending doom that Ogden describes is one of the bigger reasons some believe Satan is evil from the start; however, it might be good to consider that people often read with presuppositions. We know, even if we have limited knowledge of the scriptures, that Satan will tempt Eve, and we know that she will succumb; however, if one were to read this poem without having any knowledge of who Satan is, it is quite possible that Satan would be seen quite differently: As a fallen angel who progressively becomes blacker with the bitterness he can’t seem to choke. If one read it also without any knowledge of God, he or she might even find Satan justified in his actions (Do we really see evidence that he was not mistreated while in Heaven?). Sadly, we would be hard-pressed to find anyone with no knowledge of Satan or God.
Milton created a masterpiece with Paradise Lost. He took a risk by expounding on a story that is well known. He risked not only the possible anger of those who could not believe he had the gall to take such liberties, but he also risked that people might come to the poem with presuppositions, not taking the story of Satan as though it were of just another character. If Satan were called John, and we really believed him to be only John, we would spend the first four books yelling ‘Don’t do it!’ Satan never receives this good will, however, because the reader knows who and what he is; he is an immediate threat. This is not a weak point on the part of Milton. He was very clear in his writing and the way he presented Satan. It is the reader who must come to the story with an open mind. By no means are we going to find Satan the unfortunate angel who did all he could to do right, by the end of the poem, but we do find that he is not immediately the enemy. Milton gave us a beautiful illustration of the dangers that can come to those who put themselves above God and fight Him for that place - the disintegration of that creature’s morals and character. Satan is the ultimate tragic hero whose strength as a character is lost within the conjecture of the knowledgeable reader. We should remember, as we approach such a story as this, to keep an open mind and be ready for whatever journey the creator chooses. To truly understand and appreciate the strength of a story such as that in Paradise Lost, we must be willing to leave our history at the door and look at it with newborn eyes.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Intolerance and Love Don't Share A Bed
It’s one of those nights where I can’t sleep, because there is too much on my mind.
As some know, my biggest pet peeve is intolerance. It’s not something I advertise too much, because there is a lot of it, and I mean A LOT of it. What sort of intolerance am I thinking about? All sorts, but mostly I mean intolerance of another person’s religion/belief system. That’s a loaded phrase, yes, but has anyone else noticed how quickly some people tear down others who don’t believe like they do?
I remember once having a debate with someone whose beliefs were opposite of my own. Instead of arguing fairly and defending himself with knowledge, he instead ridiculed me because I was a ‘savage’ American and called me intolerant. This, needless to say, pressed the wrong button. I told him that I would not try to defend what I believed if he was so unwilling to put himself on the same level as me. If I had been in any way insulting of him, I wouldn’t have cared that he accused me of intolerance; however, I had done my best to defend what I was saying by quoting his own doctrine, and I was careful to never argue about him - only what he believed. This did not go over very well.
This is all to show that I see people in two parts: As a person and the way they live (Their doctrine). I am able to separate the two and not let them interfere with my contact with that person. For example: I will not let the fact that a person I know is gay interfere with me being a friend to that person. Isn’t the purpose of a Christian’s life to show love to men? I don’t think God specified and gave certain personality traits of people we should minister to. I have read nowhere in God’s word that I am to hate Muslims, Homosexuals, Thieves, etc.… I understand that I should not follow in their beliefs, but God does not teach intolerance.
Where am I coming from? A man once asked me if I hated him because he didn’t believe what I did. I was shocked that he could even think that, but he explained to me that he had received that reaction from other ‘Christians.’ This, quite frankly, angered me. I have heard similar stories of people with bad pasts being shunned in churches because they were ‘sinners.’ I want to go to that church and say, “Hey! I’m sure that you were born perfect and have every right to stick your nose up in the air!” Oh my GOODNESS people! Are we so wrapped in our own bubbles that we can’t see the world is hungry for love and acceptance?! I can’t even bring myself to call people who are so intolerant Christian’s. They are creating a stereotype for other people to put all Christians into. This is wrong, and it makes me angry. I should not have to defend my love of other people. I don’t care if someone is from a completely different world. I will love that person with as much unconditional love as God permits. Since God is omnipotent, I’m sure I won’t run out of it any time soon. I never want people to say I am intolerant. I am accepting of all just as they are.
If every Christian applied this idea to the way they lived, there wouldn’t be this stereotype for Christians to fight. People should know that we love them. If they did, perhaps then they would listen to us.
Another raving sermon from me to you. I hope this doesn’t offend anyone. It just is a topic that is very important and real to me. I want to be real with people… I hope you do too.
As some know, my biggest pet peeve is intolerance. It’s not something I advertise too much, because there is a lot of it, and I mean A LOT of it. What sort of intolerance am I thinking about? All sorts, but mostly I mean intolerance of another person’s religion/belief system. That’s a loaded phrase, yes, but has anyone else noticed how quickly some people tear down others who don’t believe like they do?
I remember once having a debate with someone whose beliefs were opposite of my own. Instead of arguing fairly and defending himself with knowledge, he instead ridiculed me because I was a ‘savage’ American and called me intolerant. This, needless to say, pressed the wrong button. I told him that I would not try to defend what I believed if he was so unwilling to put himself on the same level as me. If I had been in any way insulting of him, I wouldn’t have cared that he accused me of intolerance; however, I had done my best to defend what I was saying by quoting his own doctrine, and I was careful to never argue about him - only what he believed. This did not go over very well.
This is all to show that I see people in two parts: As a person and the way they live (Their doctrine). I am able to separate the two and not let them interfere with my contact with that person. For example: I will not let the fact that a person I know is gay interfere with me being a friend to that person. Isn’t the purpose of a Christian’s life to show love to men? I don’t think God specified and gave certain personality traits of people we should minister to. I have read nowhere in God’s word that I am to hate Muslims, Homosexuals, Thieves, etc.… I understand that I should not follow in their beliefs, but God does not teach intolerance.
Where am I coming from? A man once asked me if I hated him because he didn’t believe what I did. I was shocked that he could even think that, but he explained to me that he had received that reaction from other ‘Christians.’ This, quite frankly, angered me. I have heard similar stories of people with bad pasts being shunned in churches because they were ‘sinners.’ I want to go to that church and say, “Hey! I’m sure that you were born perfect and have every right to stick your nose up in the air!” Oh my GOODNESS people! Are we so wrapped in our own bubbles that we can’t see the world is hungry for love and acceptance?! I can’t even bring myself to call people who are so intolerant Christian’s. They are creating a stereotype for other people to put all Christians into. This is wrong, and it makes me angry. I should not have to defend my love of other people. I don’t care if someone is from a completely different world. I will love that person with as much unconditional love as God permits. Since God is omnipotent, I’m sure I won’t run out of it any time soon. I never want people to say I am intolerant. I am accepting of all just as they are.
If every Christian applied this idea to the way they lived, there wouldn’t be this stereotype for Christians to fight. People should know that we love them. If they did, perhaps then they would listen to us.
Another raving sermon from me to you. I hope this doesn’t offend anyone. It just is a topic that is very important and real to me. I want to be real with people… I hope you do too.
The 1918 Influenza
The 1918 Influenza is an almost forgotten pandemic. Many would think that the enormous violence of it, and the number of deaths that were the outcome, would have made more of an impression on the world than it has. History books rarely say more than a paragraph about it, and what is written about it does not even hint at the ferocity of it. In the 2001 World Encyclopedia, there is only a paragraph of information, and the information is not even close to stating the information adequately.
In the Spring of 1918, around mid February, a mild influenza started at a military camp in Kansas. The troops dubbed it, “Three day fever” because it usually lasted about three days, and only on rare occasions did people die. Nevertheless, in only four months, the mild strain had swept the globe, killing tens of thousands. In Boston, it infected 81 people in the space of four days. In London, 1,175 died in three weeks. But this was only the first wave of the influenza, and the milder of the two. No one was prepared when, only a month after the world had recovered from the mild influenza, it sprang up again, in a military camp at Fort Devens, Massachusetts.
On August 22nd, the first person who had the second strain of the influenza was diagnosed as having cerebrospinal meningitis. Because the doctors did not believe that a flu would have such extreme symptoms. The soldier came in with a fever, headache, burning eyes, chills, and a sore body. Soon, signs of delirium started. His face turned a brownish-purple color, he started coughing up blood, and his feet turned black. He was dead only days after showing symptoms. The next day, eight more soldiers walked into the hospital with the same symptoms. The day after that, 58 more. The fourth day, 81 more were sick. The next week, 118. Then they started dying, two hours to five days after being infected. An average of 100 soldiers died per day. Out of the 300 nurses caring for the men, 90 died. The doctors there begged the government to send scientists to diagnose the illness and try to find a cure before it spread out of the camp.
The government sent William H. Welch, a well known and revered medical scientist in America. It was said of him, “(He can) ...transform men’s lives almost with the flick of a wrist.” He was looked up to, and was considered one of the most important medical professors of the age. When he did an autopsy on one of the victims of the influenza, he actually trembled with fear at what he saw. The lungs were filled with blood and fluids. The victims were dying because they were drowning in their own blood. The doctors who were assisting him were shocked at his response when he said, “This must be some new kind of infection... Or plague.”
So the influenza started, plaguing the young and healthy with an 80% death rate. The mild strain that had swept the globe in February had mutated into a deadly flu. The doctors were very hesitant to call the sickness a flu. Some called it Bronchopneumonia. Others called it things like an Epidemic Respiratory Infection, or an unidentified pandemic disease. Doctors raced to find a vaccine, but nothing was effective. Throughout the states, the influenza attacked the humans lung cells, and black feet indicated the death that would inevitably occur.
Massachusetts was the first state to suffer huge numbers of deaths, but it quickly spread. The Great Lakes Training Station, in Chicago, Illinois, was struck hard. 2,600 men were squeezed into barracks for 1,800. In a military camp in Ohio that held 13,161 men, 1,101 died. Some cities had multiple waves of the strain. Louisville, Kentucky suffered three waves in rapid succession. San Francisco was told to start digging graves in preparation for the influenza. In many cities, they made it a requirement to wear a surgical mask at all times. In San Francisco alone, they distributed 5,000 masks in one hour. Fines for leaving the home without a mask were a minimum of $5, to 30 days in jail. Seattle and New York were two other cities that required the masks. In most cities any public gatherings were banned, but some churches continued to meet outside. If you were sick while traveling by ship, you were told to sleep on deck, with no one to nurse you, to lessen the chance that others would get ill. Sheets were hung in military barracks to keep soldiers from breathing on one another. The influenza was nicknamed, “Purple Death.”
Philadelphia was the hardest hit American city. The doctors there claimed that the influenza wouldn’t survive because of the climate, so they didn’t even try to take any precautions. When it struck, 4,500 died in two weeks. In one day, 759 died. Morgues were so crowded with bodies that embalmers refused to go into them. Funerals were limited to 15 minutes long. There were ten times more bodies than caskets to put them in. Signs were posted, begging people not to spit or close their windows. Priests drove carts down the streets, calling out, asking people to bring out their dead. There was such a need for doctors that they asked for volunteer doctors, and didn’t require someone with a medical degree. 72,000 volunteered. Non Certified doctors and nurses were frantically assigned to hospitals in need. The number of dead bodies was so great, mass graves were dug, and bodies thrown in without coffins. Grave-diggers were accused of dealing ghoulishly with the bodies, but there simply wasn’t enough time to do anything differently. One doctor said, “The life of the city had almost stopped.”
Between September 11th, and October 3rd, there were an estimated 75,000 cases of the influenza in America. September through November, the American Expeditionary Force listed 9,144 deaths. In September alone, 12,000 American’s died. In all, 38% of the American Army and Navy were killed. More American soldiers, not including civilians, died than those in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, World War I, and World War II, put together. Rumors were spread that the influenza was an act of war: That the German drug company, Bayer, was mixing the virus with the aspirin they were sending to the states; Or maybe the German military released an airborne virus in Boston Harbor and other major American cities.
But the US was not the only place to suffer. Within two months, the entire globe was infected, excluding Australia, and islands under Australia’s jurisdiction. Australia, when hearing about the virus, cut off all contact of the outside world.
They got the better end of the deal. The French army suffered at least 10,158 deaths in three months. The French called the influenza, “La Grippe.” In two months, the British Expeditionary Force suffered at least 3,656 deaths. In Wales, two thirds of the population died. In Germany, people were literally dropping dead in the streets. The Germans called it, “Blitzkatarrh,” which means, “Lightning.” An Eskimo village of 80 people was hit, and when the influenza had passed, only five adults and a number of children had survived.
But those numbers pale in comparison of the overall affect of the influenza. It killed more in a year than the Black Death had killed in 100 years. More people died in 24 days than those that die from AIDS in 24 years. It killed more in it’s duration than any other disease in history. The number of deaths was at least 50 million, but is more likely over 100 million. There is no way to find the actual amount of deaths, because it swept the globe so fast and thoroughly that accounts of it are vague, and in many places, nonexistent. In 1917, the average life expectancy was 51 years. In 1918, it dropped 12 years.
Doctors and scientists were so very frightened by the event, they immediately started looking for a vaccine, in the case that the virus might appear again. Richard Shope proved that the influenza was caused by a virus, and later, Wilson Smith discovered the virus that caused it. But this was no help.
The common flu mutates, at least once, annually. That is why new vaccines for it come out every year. But the flu mutates so fast that the vaccine quickly becomes useless. Since the 1918 Influenza was the common flu, mutated, Richard Shope’s discovery of the virus was useless. The exact same flu pattern happening again is slim, so why create a vaccine for a specific virus that will most likely never strike again? But the possibility of another bad mutation is pretty good. In fact, bad mutations of the influenza have already happened twice, but were stopped before they could spread too far. Statistics show that if the wrong mutation occurred again, it would result in 1.5 million deaths in America alone. That is roughly the number of citizens of Nebraska! The deaths would numerate over the number of deaths from heart disease, cancers, strokes, Chronic Pulmonary Disease, AIDS, and Alzheimer in one year.
So why is the 1918 Influenza so avoided when it had, and can have, such disastrous results? Alfred Crosby believes that the people who survived it are too terrified of it to speak about it. Another reason might be that it killed no big political leaders. It also left nothing behind. No cripples, no lasting disorders to those that managed to survive, and so on.
It is America’s forgotten pandemic; A killer that ravaged the globe, killing millions. Then it disappeared, leaving the world to recuperate. It is the common flu. Something that the world is so used to, they don’t even see it as a threat. The world is almost unaware that it has ever wreaked such destruction. The only question is, will the world be ready if it happens again?
In the Spring of 1918, around mid February, a mild influenza started at a military camp in Kansas. The troops dubbed it, “Three day fever” because it usually lasted about three days, and only on rare occasions did people die. Nevertheless, in only four months, the mild strain had swept the globe, killing tens of thousands. In Boston, it infected 81 people in the space of four days. In London, 1,175 died in three weeks. But this was only the first wave of the influenza, and the milder of the two. No one was prepared when, only a month after the world had recovered from the mild influenza, it sprang up again, in a military camp at Fort Devens, Massachusetts.
On August 22nd, the first person who had the second strain of the influenza was diagnosed as having cerebrospinal meningitis. Because the doctors did not believe that a flu would have such extreme symptoms. The soldier came in with a fever, headache, burning eyes, chills, and a sore body. Soon, signs of delirium started. His face turned a brownish-purple color, he started coughing up blood, and his feet turned black. He was dead only days after showing symptoms. The next day, eight more soldiers walked into the hospital with the same symptoms. The day after that, 58 more. The fourth day, 81 more were sick. The next week, 118. Then they started dying, two hours to five days after being infected. An average of 100 soldiers died per day. Out of the 300 nurses caring for the men, 90 died. The doctors there begged the government to send scientists to diagnose the illness and try to find a cure before it spread out of the camp.
The government sent William H. Welch, a well known and revered medical scientist in America. It was said of him, “(He can) ...transform men’s lives almost with the flick of a wrist.” He was looked up to, and was considered one of the most important medical professors of the age. When he did an autopsy on one of the victims of the influenza, he actually trembled with fear at what he saw. The lungs were filled with blood and fluids. The victims were dying because they were drowning in their own blood. The doctors who were assisting him were shocked at his response when he said, “This must be some new kind of infection... Or plague.”
So the influenza started, plaguing the young and healthy with an 80% death rate. The mild strain that had swept the globe in February had mutated into a deadly flu. The doctors were very hesitant to call the sickness a flu. Some called it Bronchopneumonia. Others called it things like an Epidemic Respiratory Infection, or an unidentified pandemic disease. Doctors raced to find a vaccine, but nothing was effective. Throughout the states, the influenza attacked the humans lung cells, and black feet indicated the death that would inevitably occur.
Massachusetts was the first state to suffer huge numbers of deaths, but it quickly spread. The Great Lakes Training Station, in Chicago, Illinois, was struck hard. 2,600 men were squeezed into barracks for 1,800. In a military camp in Ohio that held 13,161 men, 1,101 died. Some cities had multiple waves of the strain. Louisville, Kentucky suffered three waves in rapid succession. San Francisco was told to start digging graves in preparation for the influenza. In many cities, they made it a requirement to wear a surgical mask at all times. In San Francisco alone, they distributed 5,000 masks in one hour. Fines for leaving the home without a mask were a minimum of $5, to 30 days in jail. Seattle and New York were two other cities that required the masks. In most cities any public gatherings were banned, but some churches continued to meet outside. If you were sick while traveling by ship, you were told to sleep on deck, with no one to nurse you, to lessen the chance that others would get ill. Sheets were hung in military barracks to keep soldiers from breathing on one another. The influenza was nicknamed, “Purple Death.”
Philadelphia was the hardest hit American city. The doctors there claimed that the influenza wouldn’t survive because of the climate, so they didn’t even try to take any precautions. When it struck, 4,500 died in two weeks. In one day, 759 died. Morgues were so crowded with bodies that embalmers refused to go into them. Funerals were limited to 15 minutes long. There were ten times more bodies than caskets to put them in. Signs were posted, begging people not to spit or close their windows. Priests drove carts down the streets, calling out, asking people to bring out their dead. There was such a need for doctors that they asked for volunteer doctors, and didn’t require someone with a medical degree. 72,000 volunteered. Non Certified doctors and nurses were frantically assigned to hospitals in need. The number of dead bodies was so great, mass graves were dug, and bodies thrown in without coffins. Grave-diggers were accused of dealing ghoulishly with the bodies, but there simply wasn’t enough time to do anything differently. One doctor said, “The life of the city had almost stopped.”
Between September 11th, and October 3rd, there were an estimated 75,000 cases of the influenza in America. September through November, the American Expeditionary Force listed 9,144 deaths. In September alone, 12,000 American’s died. In all, 38% of the American Army and Navy were killed. More American soldiers, not including civilians, died than those in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, World War I, and World War II, put together. Rumors were spread that the influenza was an act of war: That the German drug company, Bayer, was mixing the virus with the aspirin they were sending to the states; Or maybe the German military released an airborne virus in Boston Harbor and other major American cities.
But the US was not the only place to suffer. Within two months, the entire globe was infected, excluding Australia, and islands under Australia’s jurisdiction. Australia, when hearing about the virus, cut off all contact of the outside world.
They got the better end of the deal. The French army suffered at least 10,158 deaths in three months. The French called the influenza, “La Grippe.” In two months, the British Expeditionary Force suffered at least 3,656 deaths. In Wales, two thirds of the population died. In Germany, people were literally dropping dead in the streets. The Germans called it, “Blitzkatarrh,” which means, “Lightning.” An Eskimo village of 80 people was hit, and when the influenza had passed, only five adults and a number of children had survived.
But those numbers pale in comparison of the overall affect of the influenza. It killed more in a year than the Black Death had killed in 100 years. More people died in 24 days than those that die from AIDS in 24 years. It killed more in it’s duration than any other disease in history. The number of deaths was at least 50 million, but is more likely over 100 million. There is no way to find the actual amount of deaths, because it swept the globe so fast and thoroughly that accounts of it are vague, and in many places, nonexistent. In 1917, the average life expectancy was 51 years. In 1918, it dropped 12 years.
Doctors and scientists were so very frightened by the event, they immediately started looking for a vaccine, in the case that the virus might appear again. Richard Shope proved that the influenza was caused by a virus, and later, Wilson Smith discovered the virus that caused it. But this was no help.
The common flu mutates, at least once, annually. That is why new vaccines for it come out every year. But the flu mutates so fast that the vaccine quickly becomes useless. Since the 1918 Influenza was the common flu, mutated, Richard Shope’s discovery of the virus was useless. The exact same flu pattern happening again is slim, so why create a vaccine for a specific virus that will most likely never strike again? But the possibility of another bad mutation is pretty good. In fact, bad mutations of the influenza have already happened twice, but were stopped before they could spread too far. Statistics show that if the wrong mutation occurred again, it would result in 1.5 million deaths in America alone. That is roughly the number of citizens of Nebraska! The deaths would numerate over the number of deaths from heart disease, cancers, strokes, Chronic Pulmonary Disease, AIDS, and Alzheimer in one year.
So why is the 1918 Influenza so avoided when it had, and can have, such disastrous results? Alfred Crosby believes that the people who survived it are too terrified of it to speak about it. Another reason might be that it killed no big political leaders. It also left nothing behind. No cripples, no lasting disorders to those that managed to survive, and so on.
It is America’s forgotten pandemic; A killer that ravaged the globe, killing millions. Then it disappeared, leaving the world to recuperate. It is the common flu. Something that the world is so used to, they don’t even see it as a threat. The world is almost unaware that it has ever wreaked such destruction. The only question is, will the world be ready if it happens again?
My Top 20 Books and Why You Should Read Them
If I tagged you in this, it is because I know of your interest in books and think you might be interested in at least one of them. They are of all sorts, and for all ages, so take it with a grain of salt. They are listed in alphabetical order, by author, and there are five honorable mentions. Enjoy!
1. “Watership Down,” by Richard Adams - This is what should be considered an old classic and is considered so by many. It creates a whole new culture for you to consider and examine, and it will forever change the way you look at rabbits. It is one of the few books that I have immediately loved. It is easy to enjoy by someone of any age, and it is also a good story to read aloud as a family event.
2. “The Lost Choice,” by Andy Andrews - Andy Andrews is an author I would recommend to anyone. His stories always contain a mix of history, morality, and the affect one person can have upon another. This particular one focuses on how your choices can dramatically affect history, and he uses great detail of people in history to explain this, using the stories of Oskar Schindler, John Adams, and George Washington Carver, just to name a few. This can be enjoyed by someone of any age but would be better understood and appreciated by young adults and up.
3. “Pride and Prejudice,” by Jane Austin - Another classic! This is definitely geared toward women rather than men, but both can enjoy it. It is extremely humorous, witty, and complex in it’s exploration of characters. It will be a harder read for people who are not used to the style of that time, but it gets easier as you read more of it, so it is worth the patience!
4. “Fire By Night,” by Lynn Austin - This is by a contemporary author who enjoys combining her stories with history. This particular story is about two women during the Civil War: One who becomes a nurse, and one who enlists in the army, disguised as a man. It is a romance, so it is geared towards women, but it’s take on the times is very interesting, and it’s message is important. I would recommend it to anyone who likes history, especially if they have an interest in the Civil War and the way things were during that time.
5. “The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic In History,” by John M. Barry - This is actually a history book, not a novel. I read three books on this subject at once, and this was my favorite of the three. It reads like a novel, and it is not heavy on meticulous descriptions. It talks about not only the influenza pandemic, but it also describes the world economy and politics at that time, and will really open your eyes. It is amazing to read, and rich with details. If you are easily worried or made nervous, do not read this book. Otherwise, I would recommend it to adults, not children.
6. “The Murder of Tutankhamen,” by Bob Brier - This is another history book/not a novel. This was my introduction to Egyptian history, and rightly so, as Brier is one of the leading Egyptologist’s of our time. Even though Brier’s theory of King Tut’s murder has recently been proven to be impossible, it is still filled with history and interesting facts about the culture and people of Egypt. I would recommend it to people of every age, especially those with interest in mysteries and history.
7. “And Then There Were None,” by Agatha Christie - This book is also known as “Ten Little Indians” and is considered one of Agatha Christie’s best works, closely rivaled by the mysteries involving Poirot and Miss Marple. If you expect it to end like the movie, you will be surprised. It is not like the most common mystery, which is why I think I love it so much. Christie is known for writing mysteries that no one can solve, and this one is no exception. I recommend it for any age, though I think it would be better enjoyed by older readers interested in mysteries and good twists.
8. “Blink,” by Ted Dekker - Ted Dekker, as many know, is my favorite author of all time. His books often contain elements of mystery, suspense, romance, and spirituality. This book is about a woman from the Middle East, trying to run away from an arranged marriage, who ends up needing the help of an American man who has visions of possible futures. The book contains the arguments they have about God as well, because she is Muslim, and he is an Atheist. The book is written in such a way that it explains how God can be omniscient and still give us free will in a way that is easy to understand, so if you’re confused about that element of faith, read this book! Good for any ages, but especially young adults and up.
9. “The Circle Trilogy,” by Ted Dekker - Yes, more of Dekker! This trilogy, I think, can be compared to the “Chronicles of Narnia” in that it creates the stories of Creation, the life and death of Christ, and life under the new covenant, in a new world, much like Narnia. What makes it even more awesome is that it combines this with a completely different story about a possible biological terrorist attack in the present day. You just have to read it, because I could gush about it on and on. I recommend this most highly to adults, though it is certainly okay for any age. If you like mystery, a bit of romance, adventures, thrills, and a good scripture lesson (J), read this trilogy. I recommend this higher than any other book in this list.
10. The Sherlock Holmes mysteries, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle - What can I say? Doyle probably created the most iconic detective in history, and he created a good one. I have enjoyed Holmes since I read “Hound of the Baskervilles” when I was eleven or twelve. The short stories are amazing, as are the books, and I would recommend him for the bright minds of any age, especially as an introduction to mysteries for children.
11. “The O’Malley Series,” by Dee Henderson - I was given the first three books in this series by my sister-in-law and had all seven books in the series read within a month. They are, quite frankly, captivating. They can be a bit predictable, but the characters are unforgettable, the plots are very creative, and you never see the same thing twice. I enjoyed, especially, the fact that each character was so different. You see a firefighter, an FBI agent, a forensic psychologist, etc. These are recommended if you like romance, mystery, and a thriller. More written for women, young adults and up.
12. “American Anthem Series,” by B. J. Hoff - Hoff was the first romance writer I ever read, remains one of my favorite authors. This series is about the story of a woman whose sister died while married to a blind, 19th century, Italian composer, leaving behind a little girl. The story is captivating in it’s fill of culture, history, and romance. It is a beautiful series, and I recommend it to young adults and up who enjoy romance.
13. “A Wolf Story,” by James Byron Huggins - This story is, in many ways, similar to the approach C. S. Lewis took in creating Narnia with animals as God’s creation, in place of Earth and Man. I found the book to be creative and ingenious and devoured it from front cover to back. I would recommend it to any age and think that guys especially will enjoy the way that wolves were used in the story.
14. “Les Misérables,” by Victor Hugo - If you are not used to reading direct translations, which can be very hard to read (And I know for a fact that Les Misérables is one of those books), I recommend that you read the adaptation done by Jim Reimann. It is done extremely well and stays true to the original. This story is so beautiful and tells a powerful story of grace and forgiveness that everyone should hear. I recommend it for any age, but especially for adults. It can be very moving and uplifting for those who read it with an open heart.
15. “Left Behind Series,” by Jerry Jenkins and Tim Lahaye - I expect to get groans about this one, because many people have problems with this series because they do not have the same ideas as the authors; However, if you move past what you don’t agree with, this 12 book series is found to be done incredibly well. It is full of unforgettable characters and speaks the message of a saving God. I recommend it mostly for young adults and up. Children may have difficulty with the violence and understanding the doctrine of the series.
16. “The Chronicles of Narnia,” by C. S. Lewis - I’m sure that it was guessed that these books would be mentioned, as I have already mentioned them twice. If you enjoy fantasy, wit, and creative genius, I highly recommend these. Lewis writes like no one else, and these books can be a real treat for anyone who takes the time to enjoy them.
17. “The Twilight Saga,” by Stephenie Meyer - If you keep up with any hype these days, you will have heard of these books. I only read them because I wanted to know what all the fuss was about, and I found them to be extremely fun to read. The plots are creative and original, and the characters are unique and lovable. They are addicting and easy to get into. I recommend them to women of any age, though some men, who enjoy a good romance, will also enjoy them.
18. “Piercing the Darkness,” by Frank E. Peretti - This book was my introduction to Peretti, and it is a work of art on paper. Peretti creates a very visual example of the great effect that prayer can have on people and a community. It is an interesting way to look at prayer, and one of Peretti’s better works. I recommend this to adults and mature teens.
19. “Where the Red Fern Grows,” by Wilson Rawls - I got this book on audio tape when I was very young, and it quickly became my favorite. I listened to it so much that one of my brothers finally hid the tapes. It still makes me cry every time I read it, but I never grow sick of it. Rawls is a very visual person, and this heart wrenching story can take your imagination to some of the most beautiful places. It tells the story of dedication between a boy and his dogs as they grow up together. It contains stories of sacrifice, love, and hard work. This book was written more for boys, but I recommend it to anyone of any age, especially if you enjoy a story with real heart.
20. “The Harry Potter Series,” by J. K. Rowling - Ah, the great controversy of whether of not it is wrong to read these books! Okay, I can understand the problems that some people have with these, but I think that you should decide whether or not you read these based on your own conscience, not what others tell you. I read all of these within five months, and I actually read the entirety of the last one the day it was published, so, obviously, I don’t have a personal problem with the books. I find them funny, creative, thought-provoking, and, overall, a joy to read. The characters are wonderful, and the story is so intricately woven throughout the seven books, you wonder how Rowling managed it. I recommend these to anyone and everyone who enjoys fantasy, mystery, and just wants a laugh.
Honorable Mentions:
~ “Island of Saints,” by Andy Andrews - If you like reading about history that you’ve probably never heard of, read this book. This is a true story about a couple that Andrews met and turned into a book. It talks about the German submarines that were sinking American ships during WW2. I recommend for all ages, though young adults and up will especially enjoy them, especially if there is an interest in obscure history.
~ “Daylight and Nightmare,” by G. K. Chesterton - This is a collection of several short stories, and it is incredibly interesting. Chesterton can be hard for many to get through, because he writes about deep subjects in obscure ways. If you can get used to his style, he is very fun to read. I recommend him most highly to adults.
~ “Bud, Not Buddy,” by Christopher Paul Curtis - This book is so funny I was in tears as I read it. This heart-felt story of an orphan boy, trying to find his grandfather, is very touching and uplifting. I love all of Curtis’ work, but I have a special place in my heart for this book. I recommend it for all ages.
~ “Redeeming Love,” by Francine Rivers - This story is an adaptation of the story of Hosea, in the Bible. It is very well done and a touching story. Rivers has done many adaptations like this, but this is my personal favorite. I recommend this for mature women.
~ “The Lord of the Rings Trilogy,” by J. R. R. Tolkien - I’m sure that most will be shocked (or annoyed) that this was not in the top 20, but it is what is to me. The story is wonderful, and Tolkien is brilliant, but I have a hard time reading him. I like reading dialogue, but Tolkien spends pages and pages of description. I can’t concentrate on that for very long, so it takes me quite a while to read through his books; However, as I said, he is brilliant, and so are his books. I love them, even if they are hard for me to get through. I recommend them to young adults and up who enjoy fantasy.
Okay! There are my top twenty, or rather, twenty-five! And I didn't even mention Wodehouse or Poe! Movies will be next! As you can see, I am a reader. Most of these either are layered with history, are literature, or they are funny. All of them I have read at least twice, and some of them I have read closer to twenty times, or even more than that. Books are a wonderful was to escape somewhere for awhile, and these books are the ones that I found the most riveting. So, look over my list, see if there is one that interests you. If you want to know more about one of them, or want my complete list of my 100 top books, just let me know! And, if you want to take the time, you can tell me your top 20!
1. “Watership Down,” by Richard Adams - This is what should be considered an old classic and is considered so by many. It creates a whole new culture for you to consider and examine, and it will forever change the way you look at rabbits. It is one of the few books that I have immediately loved. It is easy to enjoy by someone of any age, and it is also a good story to read aloud as a family event.
2. “The Lost Choice,” by Andy Andrews - Andy Andrews is an author I would recommend to anyone. His stories always contain a mix of history, morality, and the affect one person can have upon another. This particular one focuses on how your choices can dramatically affect history, and he uses great detail of people in history to explain this, using the stories of Oskar Schindler, John Adams, and George Washington Carver, just to name a few. This can be enjoyed by someone of any age but would be better understood and appreciated by young adults and up.
3. “Pride and Prejudice,” by Jane Austin - Another classic! This is definitely geared toward women rather than men, but both can enjoy it. It is extremely humorous, witty, and complex in it’s exploration of characters. It will be a harder read for people who are not used to the style of that time, but it gets easier as you read more of it, so it is worth the patience!
4. “Fire By Night,” by Lynn Austin - This is by a contemporary author who enjoys combining her stories with history. This particular story is about two women during the Civil War: One who becomes a nurse, and one who enlists in the army, disguised as a man. It is a romance, so it is geared towards women, but it’s take on the times is very interesting, and it’s message is important. I would recommend it to anyone who likes history, especially if they have an interest in the Civil War and the way things were during that time.
5. “The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic In History,” by John M. Barry - This is actually a history book, not a novel. I read three books on this subject at once, and this was my favorite of the three. It reads like a novel, and it is not heavy on meticulous descriptions. It talks about not only the influenza pandemic, but it also describes the world economy and politics at that time, and will really open your eyes. It is amazing to read, and rich with details. If you are easily worried or made nervous, do not read this book. Otherwise, I would recommend it to adults, not children.
6. “The Murder of Tutankhamen,” by Bob Brier - This is another history book/not a novel. This was my introduction to Egyptian history, and rightly so, as Brier is one of the leading Egyptologist’s of our time. Even though Brier’s theory of King Tut’s murder has recently been proven to be impossible, it is still filled with history and interesting facts about the culture and people of Egypt. I would recommend it to people of every age, especially those with interest in mysteries and history.
7. “And Then There Were None,” by Agatha Christie - This book is also known as “Ten Little Indians” and is considered one of Agatha Christie’s best works, closely rivaled by the mysteries involving Poirot and Miss Marple. If you expect it to end like the movie, you will be surprised. It is not like the most common mystery, which is why I think I love it so much. Christie is known for writing mysteries that no one can solve, and this one is no exception. I recommend it for any age, though I think it would be better enjoyed by older readers interested in mysteries and good twists.
8. “Blink,” by Ted Dekker - Ted Dekker, as many know, is my favorite author of all time. His books often contain elements of mystery, suspense, romance, and spirituality. This book is about a woman from the Middle East, trying to run away from an arranged marriage, who ends up needing the help of an American man who has visions of possible futures. The book contains the arguments they have about God as well, because she is Muslim, and he is an Atheist. The book is written in such a way that it explains how God can be omniscient and still give us free will in a way that is easy to understand, so if you’re confused about that element of faith, read this book! Good for any ages, but especially young adults and up.
9. “The Circle Trilogy,” by Ted Dekker - Yes, more of Dekker! This trilogy, I think, can be compared to the “Chronicles of Narnia” in that it creates the stories of Creation, the life and death of Christ, and life under the new covenant, in a new world, much like Narnia. What makes it even more awesome is that it combines this with a completely different story about a possible biological terrorist attack in the present day. You just have to read it, because I could gush about it on and on. I recommend this most highly to adults, though it is certainly okay for any age. If you like mystery, a bit of romance, adventures, thrills, and a good scripture lesson (J), read this trilogy. I recommend this higher than any other book in this list.
10. The Sherlock Holmes mysteries, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle - What can I say? Doyle probably created the most iconic detective in history, and he created a good one. I have enjoyed Holmes since I read “Hound of the Baskervilles” when I was eleven or twelve. The short stories are amazing, as are the books, and I would recommend him for the bright minds of any age, especially as an introduction to mysteries for children.
11. “The O’Malley Series,” by Dee Henderson - I was given the first three books in this series by my sister-in-law and had all seven books in the series read within a month. They are, quite frankly, captivating. They can be a bit predictable, but the characters are unforgettable, the plots are very creative, and you never see the same thing twice. I enjoyed, especially, the fact that each character was so different. You see a firefighter, an FBI agent, a forensic psychologist, etc. These are recommended if you like romance, mystery, and a thriller. More written for women, young adults and up.
12. “American Anthem Series,” by B. J. Hoff - Hoff was the first romance writer I ever read, remains one of my favorite authors. This series is about the story of a woman whose sister died while married to a blind, 19th century, Italian composer, leaving behind a little girl. The story is captivating in it’s fill of culture, history, and romance. It is a beautiful series, and I recommend it to young adults and up who enjoy romance.
13. “A Wolf Story,” by James Byron Huggins - This story is, in many ways, similar to the approach C. S. Lewis took in creating Narnia with animals as God’s creation, in place of Earth and Man. I found the book to be creative and ingenious and devoured it from front cover to back. I would recommend it to any age and think that guys especially will enjoy the way that wolves were used in the story.
14. “Les Misérables,” by Victor Hugo - If you are not used to reading direct translations, which can be very hard to read (And I know for a fact that Les Misérables is one of those books), I recommend that you read the adaptation done by Jim Reimann. It is done extremely well and stays true to the original. This story is so beautiful and tells a powerful story of grace and forgiveness that everyone should hear. I recommend it for any age, but especially for adults. It can be very moving and uplifting for those who read it with an open heart.
15. “Left Behind Series,” by Jerry Jenkins and Tim Lahaye - I expect to get groans about this one, because many people have problems with this series because they do not have the same ideas as the authors; However, if you move past what you don’t agree with, this 12 book series is found to be done incredibly well. It is full of unforgettable characters and speaks the message of a saving God. I recommend it mostly for young adults and up. Children may have difficulty with the violence and understanding the doctrine of the series.
16. “The Chronicles of Narnia,” by C. S. Lewis - I’m sure that it was guessed that these books would be mentioned, as I have already mentioned them twice. If you enjoy fantasy, wit, and creative genius, I highly recommend these. Lewis writes like no one else, and these books can be a real treat for anyone who takes the time to enjoy them.
17. “The Twilight Saga,” by Stephenie Meyer - If you keep up with any hype these days, you will have heard of these books. I only read them because I wanted to know what all the fuss was about, and I found them to be extremely fun to read. The plots are creative and original, and the characters are unique and lovable. They are addicting and easy to get into. I recommend them to women of any age, though some men, who enjoy a good romance, will also enjoy them.
18. “Piercing the Darkness,” by Frank E. Peretti - This book was my introduction to Peretti, and it is a work of art on paper. Peretti creates a very visual example of the great effect that prayer can have on people and a community. It is an interesting way to look at prayer, and one of Peretti’s better works. I recommend this to adults and mature teens.
19. “Where the Red Fern Grows,” by Wilson Rawls - I got this book on audio tape when I was very young, and it quickly became my favorite. I listened to it so much that one of my brothers finally hid the tapes. It still makes me cry every time I read it, but I never grow sick of it. Rawls is a very visual person, and this heart wrenching story can take your imagination to some of the most beautiful places. It tells the story of dedication between a boy and his dogs as they grow up together. It contains stories of sacrifice, love, and hard work. This book was written more for boys, but I recommend it to anyone of any age, especially if you enjoy a story with real heart.
20. “The Harry Potter Series,” by J. K. Rowling - Ah, the great controversy of whether of not it is wrong to read these books! Okay, I can understand the problems that some people have with these, but I think that you should decide whether or not you read these based on your own conscience, not what others tell you. I read all of these within five months, and I actually read the entirety of the last one the day it was published, so, obviously, I don’t have a personal problem with the books. I find them funny, creative, thought-provoking, and, overall, a joy to read. The characters are wonderful, and the story is so intricately woven throughout the seven books, you wonder how Rowling managed it. I recommend these to anyone and everyone who enjoys fantasy, mystery, and just wants a laugh.
Honorable Mentions:
~ “Island of Saints,” by Andy Andrews - If you like reading about history that you’ve probably never heard of, read this book. This is a true story about a couple that Andrews met and turned into a book. It talks about the German submarines that were sinking American ships during WW2. I recommend for all ages, though young adults and up will especially enjoy them, especially if there is an interest in obscure history.
~ “Daylight and Nightmare,” by G. K. Chesterton - This is a collection of several short stories, and it is incredibly interesting. Chesterton can be hard for many to get through, because he writes about deep subjects in obscure ways. If you can get used to his style, he is very fun to read. I recommend him most highly to adults.
~ “Bud, Not Buddy,” by Christopher Paul Curtis - This book is so funny I was in tears as I read it. This heart-felt story of an orphan boy, trying to find his grandfather, is very touching and uplifting. I love all of Curtis’ work, but I have a special place in my heart for this book. I recommend it for all ages.
~ “Redeeming Love,” by Francine Rivers - This story is an adaptation of the story of Hosea, in the Bible. It is very well done and a touching story. Rivers has done many adaptations like this, but this is my personal favorite. I recommend this for mature women.
~ “The Lord of the Rings Trilogy,” by J. R. R. Tolkien - I’m sure that most will be shocked (or annoyed) that this was not in the top 20, but it is what is to me. The story is wonderful, and Tolkien is brilliant, but I have a hard time reading him. I like reading dialogue, but Tolkien spends pages and pages of description. I can’t concentrate on that for very long, so it takes me quite a while to read through his books; However, as I said, he is brilliant, and so are his books. I love them, even if they are hard for me to get through. I recommend them to young adults and up who enjoy fantasy.
Okay! There are my top twenty, or rather, twenty-five! And I didn't even mention Wodehouse or Poe! Movies will be next! As you can see, I am a reader. Most of these either are layered with history, are literature, or they are funny. All of them I have read at least twice, and some of them I have read closer to twenty times, or even more than that. Books are a wonderful was to escape somewhere for awhile, and these books are the ones that I found the most riveting. So, look over my list, see if there is one that interests you. If you want to know more about one of them, or want my complete list of my 100 top books, just let me know! And, if you want to take the time, you can tell me your top 20!
Appreciating the Eloquence of Rachmaninov’s 3rd Concerto
Sergei Rachmaninov was born on April 1st, 1873. He was the one of six children in a well-to-do, aristocratic, Russian family. He lived a life tinged with sorrow and disappointments. At a very young age, he was encouraged in his piano abilities by his mother, a professional pianist, and Rachmaninov was later able to obtain a scholarship to the Petersburg Conservatory. To the disappointment of teachers, who recognized his talent, he was an unruly and troublesome student.
In 1885, by recommendation of Alexander Siloti, Nikolai Zverev took Rachmaninov as a piano student in his special school for aristocratic families. Talent, not wealth, was a necessity. Rachmaninov was not eager to move to Moscow, but was comforted by the fact that his sister, Elena, would also be moving there to sing in the Bolshoi Opera House. However, she died before she even was able to travel there. Rachmaninov was devastated.
Rachmaninov’s studies with Zverev were intense and demanding. Practice began at two in the morning, and the students were required to play extremely complicated music from memory for distinguished dinner guests. One piece Rachmaninov learned to play by heart, after only two years of study, was Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, for eight hands, two pianos. Memorization of music was, without doubt, one of Rachmaninov’s greatest gifts.
Throughout his life, Rachmaninov continued his musical studies with various teachers, such as Taneyev. His compositions grew more and more complex, until three happenings in rapid succession, ripped his world apart. Two of his heroes, Tchaikovsky and Zverev, died, and the performance of his first symphony was a disaster, because of a drunken orchestra director. Rachmaninov sank into a deep depression, and after several years, when it become apparent that he was not getting any better, his friends persuaded him to seek help. After three months of intense therapy from Dr. Dahl, Rachmaninov started composing again.
In 1909, just nine years later, Rachmaninov wrote one of his greatest works: His Piano Concerto No. 3 in D Minor. This piece was, and is still today, considered the most difficult piece for any accomplished pianist to master. Rachmaninov himself, a master of the piano, did not deny having problems with the technical aspect of the piece. The piece was written to be played in Rachmaninov’s first tour of the United States. Played for the first time in New York, it was a great success.
The third concerto is a work of art no matter from which aspect you view it. It has a beautiful melody line that you find yourself humming. It is simple enough to remember, yet varied in numerous ways so that it never becomes monotonous. The technicality is daunting to any musician, but the skilled pianist makes it look and sound easy. The piece as a whole is haunting and tainted with a Russian aura that permeated many of Rachmaninov’s works.
Rachmaninov’s concerto was unique in that it did not fit the style of concertos during that time. Mozart had long ago set the style for any concerto: Three movement form, with contrasting rhythms and tones. This basic form was still used during Rachmaninov’s time, but a more atonal and dissonant sound was being heard in the music, and the scores were written in such a way that the soloist and orchestra were rivals. Rachmaninov adhered to the style of the Romantic period, not so much focusing on the idea of the orchestra playing against the piano, as if in combat, but rather the orchestra and piano complimented each other, more like dance partners.
Today, the 3rd concerto is considered to be ‘the’ piece for an accomplished pianist to learn. It was the piece selected by Olga Kern which won her the International Van Cliburn Competition in 2001. In 2007, it won Alexander Ghindin first prize in the Cleveland International Competition. In the 2006 Hamamatsu International Piano Competition, in Japan, the concerto was played by the third prize winner, Tae-Hyung Kim. It was used by Leif Ove Andsnes as his Russian debut piece. It is a piece mastered by talents from all over the world such as Lang Lang (China), Martha Argerich (Argentina), Van Cliburn (United States), Vladimir Ashkenazy (Russia),Vikingur Olafsson (Iceland), and Jorge Bolet (Cuba). It was also made popular through the movie “Shine,” based on the story of David Helfgott and his mission to learn the concerto.
What is it about Rachmaninov’s 3rd Concerto that makes it such a attraction, not only to pianist wanting to show off his or her technique, but also to those that listen to it? Perhaps a walk through the concerto will help paint the clearest vision of this masterpiece.
The concerto opens with an extremely short orchestral introduction, to establish the rhythm and key signature of the piece. The piano enters at the third measure, establishing the main theme. The theme is a simple, step-wise melody line that is beautiful as well as mysterious. When the melody has been introduced, the orchestra repeats it, with the piano playing complicated arpeggios and trills above it, making it appear that the piano and orchestra have switched parts. The theme grows in intensity and is developed by layering the melody more and more subtly within the development. Rachmaninov’s love of full sounding chords, complicated technique, and a beautiful melody line are very obvious. After the development, the theme is reintroduced and then developed in a way that heads into a totally different direction. Whereas the development in the beginning had contained a sweeter and more sympathetic overtone, the second major development is darker and heavier, as if the music is reaching for it’s highest emotional pull, so as to convey the great emotions it can not put into words. The climax of the second development slowly dies, with the help of light, chromatic scales, and seems to enter into a new world of musical curiosity. This development seems to end on a question mark, rather that a statement. Then the development is further developed into an almost angry or frustrated tone color. In the soloist’s cadenza, the music seems to climb upwards, as though trying to grasp that emotion that it can’t quite express completely. As the climax reaches it’s fullest height, Rachmaninov again used gentle arpeggios to relax the listener, and leads into a gentle melody that makes you want to laugh and weep all at once. This quiet melody subtly leads you into the third repeat of the main melody, and before you know it, you are back where you started. The Allegro unexpectedly ends on a note of mystery.
The second movement (Intermezzo) introduces an entirely new theme, as well as a new rhythm and tone. The orchestra plays a long introduction, which has a great feeling of the lowest depths of sadness. When the piano finally enters, it is on a note of a heavier sadness, as though one is angry at the same time. The pianist has a brief moment to explain the pain and the orchestra reenters, as if to quiet the piano with a calmer descant. The piano seems to agree to calm, though a burst of anger seems to come through, as if it cannot not be completely calmed. It is an unexpected emotion in this movement, because it started so quietly. As the melody develops, however, the huge chords take on a different light, the sound seeming almost painful in musical texture. It further develops into a section that has quick repetition of notes, sound almost like flight, then slowly mellows away from this idea. The orchestra takes over, developing this theme and bringing us back to a sound similar to the beginning of the Intermezzo. This idea is suddenly burst and forgotten when the piano enters with flying scales, octaves, and thick chords. This abrupt change brings you dramatically into the Finale.
The Finale takes on such an unexpected transformation from the Intermezzo that one almost forgets to pay attention to the wonderful developments taking place through the virtuosic technique of the pianist. Almost before you can catch your breath, the pure dramatic display of this new, and yet familiar theme being fully revealed. Rachmaninov’s ability to express so much, and yet not simplify anything in the least, was one of his greatest gifts. He was considered to be a pianist who knew the limits of the virtuosic pianist, and his music pushed for every ounce of talent and technique the performer could possibly muster. It did not transcend the pianist’s ability, but rather it made sure that the pianist could not play without the utmost balance of talent and well-practiced technique. The Scherzando of the Finale seems to briefly move away from the theme, and show off the players technical abilities, then it moves from that into light arpeggios and scales, almost imperceptibly playing a beautiful melody line, which too few performers of the piece seem to recognize. This theme lowers quickly, running down the scale, and into the development of the Finale’s beginning theme. One of the best things Rachmaninov did for this piece was to give the player a rest from the large chorded climaxes and melded into the piece many fragments of lighter developments of the theme. He used this structure well throughout the entire piece, but it is especially noticeable in the finale. The melody is given time to structure itself and is given an almost transcendent beauty as the piano takes its moments to breath and slowly play a small melody line before the orchestra quietly hums the beginning chords and the movement has recognizably begun it’s main theme over again. One can almost feel that the orchestra is holding back slightly, as though afraid to reenter the world of heightened emotions that the soloist is constantly bringing its listener back to; However, when the soloist enters, the orchestra seems to finally give in to the pure magic of rich emotions that only Rachmaninov was able to display in his music. The Vivace noticeably draws it’s listener into a climax with its upward motion and march-like tempo. The orchestra builds up suddenly, allowing the soloist to almost sing it’s melody line from the first movement, which has developed in such a way that it unifies the entire piece together. The listener wonders how the music has reached a place of such naked and vulnerable emotion. As if coming to grips with the emotions themselves, the soloist makes one last climb to the greatest heights of emotion, almost bringing its listener to tears, then brings itself back down, as if resolved to no longer be controlled by sadness and determined to live life to its fullest.
Classical music critics have not been easy on Rachmaninov. His works are so technical that they believe he is too technical. They compare him to the composers who wrote scores and scores of some of the most beautiful music ever heard; and yet one should still consider this: Perhaps it is not the amount of pieces that a composer writes that makes he or she the best but rather the quality of those singularly outstanding works and their ability to touch people in a way that no other music can. Rachmaninov may not have written the most outstanding music, or the best, even, but he did something that no other composer has ever done: He wrote music that defines emotions in their most quintessential form and surpasses what we can put into words.
In 1885, by recommendation of Alexander Siloti, Nikolai Zverev took Rachmaninov as a piano student in his special school for aristocratic families. Talent, not wealth, was a necessity. Rachmaninov was not eager to move to Moscow, but was comforted by the fact that his sister, Elena, would also be moving there to sing in the Bolshoi Opera House. However, she died before she even was able to travel there. Rachmaninov was devastated.
Rachmaninov’s studies with Zverev were intense and demanding. Practice began at two in the morning, and the students were required to play extremely complicated music from memory for distinguished dinner guests. One piece Rachmaninov learned to play by heart, after only two years of study, was Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, for eight hands, two pianos. Memorization of music was, without doubt, one of Rachmaninov’s greatest gifts.
Throughout his life, Rachmaninov continued his musical studies with various teachers, such as Taneyev. His compositions grew more and more complex, until three happenings in rapid succession, ripped his world apart. Two of his heroes, Tchaikovsky and Zverev, died, and the performance of his first symphony was a disaster, because of a drunken orchestra director. Rachmaninov sank into a deep depression, and after several years, when it become apparent that he was not getting any better, his friends persuaded him to seek help. After three months of intense therapy from Dr. Dahl, Rachmaninov started composing again.
In 1909, just nine years later, Rachmaninov wrote one of his greatest works: His Piano Concerto No. 3 in D Minor. This piece was, and is still today, considered the most difficult piece for any accomplished pianist to master. Rachmaninov himself, a master of the piano, did not deny having problems with the technical aspect of the piece. The piece was written to be played in Rachmaninov’s first tour of the United States. Played for the first time in New York, it was a great success.
The third concerto is a work of art no matter from which aspect you view it. It has a beautiful melody line that you find yourself humming. It is simple enough to remember, yet varied in numerous ways so that it never becomes monotonous. The technicality is daunting to any musician, but the skilled pianist makes it look and sound easy. The piece as a whole is haunting and tainted with a Russian aura that permeated many of Rachmaninov’s works.
Rachmaninov’s concerto was unique in that it did not fit the style of concertos during that time. Mozart had long ago set the style for any concerto: Three movement form, with contrasting rhythms and tones. This basic form was still used during Rachmaninov’s time, but a more atonal and dissonant sound was being heard in the music, and the scores were written in such a way that the soloist and orchestra were rivals. Rachmaninov adhered to the style of the Romantic period, not so much focusing on the idea of the orchestra playing against the piano, as if in combat, but rather the orchestra and piano complimented each other, more like dance partners.
Today, the 3rd concerto is considered to be ‘the’ piece for an accomplished pianist to learn. It was the piece selected by Olga Kern which won her the International Van Cliburn Competition in 2001. In 2007, it won Alexander Ghindin first prize in the Cleveland International Competition. In the 2006 Hamamatsu International Piano Competition, in Japan, the concerto was played by the third prize winner, Tae-Hyung Kim. It was used by Leif Ove Andsnes as his Russian debut piece. It is a piece mastered by talents from all over the world such as Lang Lang (China), Martha Argerich (Argentina), Van Cliburn (United States), Vladimir Ashkenazy (Russia),Vikingur Olafsson (Iceland), and Jorge Bolet (Cuba). It was also made popular through the movie “Shine,” based on the story of David Helfgott and his mission to learn the concerto.
What is it about Rachmaninov’s 3rd Concerto that makes it such a attraction, not only to pianist wanting to show off his or her technique, but also to those that listen to it? Perhaps a walk through the concerto will help paint the clearest vision of this masterpiece.
The concerto opens with an extremely short orchestral introduction, to establish the rhythm and key signature of the piece. The piano enters at the third measure, establishing the main theme. The theme is a simple, step-wise melody line that is beautiful as well as mysterious. When the melody has been introduced, the orchestra repeats it, with the piano playing complicated arpeggios and trills above it, making it appear that the piano and orchestra have switched parts. The theme grows in intensity and is developed by layering the melody more and more subtly within the development. Rachmaninov’s love of full sounding chords, complicated technique, and a beautiful melody line are very obvious. After the development, the theme is reintroduced and then developed in a way that heads into a totally different direction. Whereas the development in the beginning had contained a sweeter and more sympathetic overtone, the second major development is darker and heavier, as if the music is reaching for it’s highest emotional pull, so as to convey the great emotions it can not put into words. The climax of the second development slowly dies, with the help of light, chromatic scales, and seems to enter into a new world of musical curiosity. This development seems to end on a question mark, rather that a statement. Then the development is further developed into an almost angry or frustrated tone color. In the soloist’s cadenza, the music seems to climb upwards, as though trying to grasp that emotion that it can’t quite express completely. As the climax reaches it’s fullest height, Rachmaninov again used gentle arpeggios to relax the listener, and leads into a gentle melody that makes you want to laugh and weep all at once. This quiet melody subtly leads you into the third repeat of the main melody, and before you know it, you are back where you started. The Allegro unexpectedly ends on a note of mystery.
The second movement (Intermezzo) introduces an entirely new theme, as well as a new rhythm and tone. The orchestra plays a long introduction, which has a great feeling of the lowest depths of sadness. When the piano finally enters, it is on a note of a heavier sadness, as though one is angry at the same time. The pianist has a brief moment to explain the pain and the orchestra reenters, as if to quiet the piano with a calmer descant. The piano seems to agree to calm, though a burst of anger seems to come through, as if it cannot not be completely calmed. It is an unexpected emotion in this movement, because it started so quietly. As the melody develops, however, the huge chords take on a different light, the sound seeming almost painful in musical texture. It further develops into a section that has quick repetition of notes, sound almost like flight, then slowly mellows away from this idea. The orchestra takes over, developing this theme and bringing us back to a sound similar to the beginning of the Intermezzo. This idea is suddenly burst and forgotten when the piano enters with flying scales, octaves, and thick chords. This abrupt change brings you dramatically into the Finale.
The Finale takes on such an unexpected transformation from the Intermezzo that one almost forgets to pay attention to the wonderful developments taking place through the virtuosic technique of the pianist. Almost before you can catch your breath, the pure dramatic display of this new, and yet familiar theme being fully revealed. Rachmaninov’s ability to express so much, and yet not simplify anything in the least, was one of his greatest gifts. He was considered to be a pianist who knew the limits of the virtuosic pianist, and his music pushed for every ounce of talent and technique the performer could possibly muster. It did not transcend the pianist’s ability, but rather it made sure that the pianist could not play without the utmost balance of talent and well-practiced technique. The Scherzando of the Finale seems to briefly move away from the theme, and show off the players technical abilities, then it moves from that into light arpeggios and scales, almost imperceptibly playing a beautiful melody line, which too few performers of the piece seem to recognize. This theme lowers quickly, running down the scale, and into the development of the Finale’s beginning theme. One of the best things Rachmaninov did for this piece was to give the player a rest from the large chorded climaxes and melded into the piece many fragments of lighter developments of the theme. He used this structure well throughout the entire piece, but it is especially noticeable in the finale. The melody is given time to structure itself and is given an almost transcendent beauty as the piano takes its moments to breath and slowly play a small melody line before the orchestra quietly hums the beginning chords and the movement has recognizably begun it’s main theme over again. One can almost feel that the orchestra is holding back slightly, as though afraid to reenter the world of heightened emotions that the soloist is constantly bringing its listener back to; However, when the soloist enters, the orchestra seems to finally give in to the pure magic of rich emotions that only Rachmaninov was able to display in his music. The Vivace noticeably draws it’s listener into a climax with its upward motion and march-like tempo. The orchestra builds up suddenly, allowing the soloist to almost sing it’s melody line from the first movement, which has developed in such a way that it unifies the entire piece together. The listener wonders how the music has reached a place of such naked and vulnerable emotion. As if coming to grips with the emotions themselves, the soloist makes one last climb to the greatest heights of emotion, almost bringing its listener to tears, then brings itself back down, as if resolved to no longer be controlled by sadness and determined to live life to its fullest.
Classical music critics have not been easy on Rachmaninov. His works are so technical that they believe he is too technical. They compare him to the composers who wrote scores and scores of some of the most beautiful music ever heard; and yet one should still consider this: Perhaps it is not the amount of pieces that a composer writes that makes he or she the best but rather the quality of those singularly outstanding works and their ability to touch people in a way that no other music can. Rachmaninov may not have written the most outstanding music, or the best, even, but he did something that no other composer has ever done: He wrote music that defines emotions in their most quintessential form and surpasses what we can put into words.
"The Code of a Gentleman"
"Without a strict observance of the fundamental Code of Honor, no man, no matter how 'polished,' can be considered a gentleman. The honor of a gentleman demands the inviolability of his word, and the incorruptibility of his principles. He is the descendant of the knight, the crusader; he is the defender of the defense-less and the champion of justice . . . or he is not a Gentleman.
"A Gentleman . . .
"Does not discuss his family affairs in public or with acquaintances.
"Does not speak more than casually about his girl friend.
"Does not go to a lady's house if he is affected by alcohol. He is temperate in the use of alcohol.
"Does not lose his temper; nor exhibit anger, fear, hate, embarrassment, ardor or hilarity in public.
"Does not hail a lady from a club window.
"A gentleman never discusses the merits or demerits of a lady.
"Does not mention names exactly as he avoids the mention of what things cost.
"Does not borrow money from a friend, except in dire need. Money borrowed is a debt of honor, and must be repaid as promptly as possible. Debts incurred by a deceased parent, brother, sister or grown child are assumed by honorable men as a debt of honor.
"Does not display his wealth, money or possessions.
"Does not put his manners on and off, whether in the club or in a ballroom. He treats people with courtesy, no matter what their social position may be.
"Does not slap strangers on the back nor so much as lay a finger on a lady.
"Does not 'lick the boots of those above' nor 'kick the face of those below him on the social ladder.'
"Does not take advantage of another's helplessness or ignorance and assumes that no gentleman will take advantage of him.
"A Gentleman respects the reserves of others, but demands that others respect those which are his.
"A Gentleman can become what he wills to be. . . ."
(Published by VMI)
"A Gentleman . . .
"Does not discuss his family affairs in public or with acquaintances.
"Does not speak more than casually about his girl friend.
"Does not go to a lady's house if he is affected by alcohol. He is temperate in the use of alcohol.
"Does not lose his temper; nor exhibit anger, fear, hate, embarrassment, ardor or hilarity in public.
"Does not hail a lady from a club window.
"A gentleman never discusses the merits or demerits of a lady.
"Does not mention names exactly as he avoids the mention of what things cost.
"Does not borrow money from a friend, except in dire need. Money borrowed is a debt of honor, and must be repaid as promptly as possible. Debts incurred by a deceased parent, brother, sister or grown child are assumed by honorable men as a debt of honor.
"Does not display his wealth, money or possessions.
"Does not put his manners on and off, whether in the club or in a ballroom. He treats people with courtesy, no matter what their social position may be.
"Does not slap strangers on the back nor so much as lay a finger on a lady.
"Does not 'lick the boots of those above' nor 'kick the face of those below him on the social ladder.'
"Does not take advantage of another's helplessness or ignorance and assumes that no gentleman will take advantage of him.
"A Gentleman respects the reserves of others, but demands that others respect those which are his.
"A Gentleman can become what he wills to be. . . ."
(Published by VMI)
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Sure on this shining night
Sure on this shining night by James Agee
Sure on this shining night
Of star made shadows round,
Kindness must watch for me
This side the ground.
The late year lies down the north.
All is healed, all is health.
High summer holds the earth.
Hearts all whole.
Sure on this shining night I weep for wonder wand'ring far
alone
Of shadows on the stars.
Sure on this shining night
Of star made shadows round,
Kindness must watch for me
This side the ground.
The late year lies down the north.
All is healed, all is health.
High summer holds the earth.
Hearts all whole.
Sure on this shining night I weep for wonder wand'ring far
alone
Of shadows on the stars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)