Cartoon Time.

The Birth of Meaning

It is interesting to speculate (speculation being the only tool at our disposal in this case) on the origins of the desire and oft stated apparent need to find meaning in things larger than ourselves. We do not waste much effort pondering the meaning of reading novels or eating food as both give us pleasure and one helps keep us alive. We no longer ask advice on the meaning of storms or the position of the stars in the sky – although the continued popularity of newspaper horoscopes signifies that at least some of the general population still do so. Yet we still brood over not only the meaning of our own lives but the meaning of all life, of all existence. As far as we know we are the only creatures on Earth to do this. Neither mice nor ants appear to give any thought or expend any energy examining the ‘meaning of it all’ as they gaze into a night sky full of stars. They are in fact incapable of such musings because they are incapable of self-reflective thought. They may be acutely aware of their surroundings in order to prosper in their environmental niche but they are not, at least as far as we can tell, aware of themselves being aware. They are neither conscious nor self aware and are, as far as we are able to ascertain, blissfully ignorant of their place in the universe. It is only man that asks himself why he is here and what it all means. It is entirely possible that the universe acquired any meaning at all only though a supreme act of arrogance on the part of a self-aware humanity when one of its earliest thinkers asked the question: How can such a universe be meaningless when I am in it? As soon as such a question is posed it is but a short journey to the construction of ideologies and religions which provide the desired meaning that can now be imposed on a previously uncaring, silent and indifferent universe. Such ‘meaning’ serves apparently deep psychological needs which may account for its widespread nature. There is seemingly something within the self-aware mind that requires meaning to exist in order to function. Such a desire often seems overwhelming and explains why many hold onto whatever meaning they have derived or bought into with such fervour. The idea that life is essentially meaningless is not only anathema to many but also deeply terrifying.

[Extracted – slightly amended - from my MA dissertation: The death of God and the Challenge of Nihilism.]

A refreshing example of honest advertising… Or a simple piece of Capitalist propaganda?

Just Finished Reading: The Fall by Albert Camus

I just didn’t ‘get’ this novel. Or maybe I did and thought “…and?”

Billed as ‘The most perfect of his meditations on human isolation and bewilderment before an enigmatic universe’ this novel by the noted French philosopher and novelist told the story of ex-lawyer Jean-Baptiste Clamence who relates his life story to a stranger he meets in an Amsterdam bar. After years in a successful Paris career he decides suddenly that his life is a sham and begins to cynically manipulate the people around him. Seeing no value in anything the narrator’s response is a life of Hedonism punctuated with periods of drunkenness and sexual debauchery – none of which satisfies him in the least. Finally he decides that he must live as if he is the only person of value and that the rest of the world should either vanish or worship him.

…and that was it.

I did struggle with this book, thinking – just what is the point of the narrative… which may actually have been the point! It probably didn’t help that I read most of the 92 pages in my lunch break during a particularly hectic week at work, where I was often interrupted by visitors to my desk or by phone calls about the latest ‘crisis’. It’s hard to tell, though I don’t think that I can bring myself to give it a second ‘go’ just yet. I’ll let it simmer a bit in the back on my mind for a while. I do have two more novels by Camus which I shall be reading at a later date. I hope, and expect, I’ll find them a better read that this one – although maybe this is what Existentialist novels are like….. [grin]

Cartoon Time.

My Favourite Movies: Pride and Prejudice

I very vividly remember seeing this when it came out in 2005. I’m not exactly sure why the guys didn’t see it with us but I ended up going just with CQ. Maybe it was because it was a costume drama? Maybe it was because it was billed as a major ‘chick-flick’? Maybe it was because it was Jane Austen?

Anyway, we arrived early fully expecting to have to fight our way through the crowds only to discover no long line of people patiently waiting. Momentarily perplexed we realised that the Multiplex had decided to show the film on one of its two largest screens seating around 300 people. That explains it we thought. Wrong! When we got into the screen itself it was packed and we struggled to get two decent seats together. The audience was probably 97% women all eagerly chatting about the treat ahead. I’m struggling to remember if I read the book before or after I saw the movie. I have a feeling it was afterwards. Not that I needed any additional pre-knowledge of the plot. It is, after all, a classic of English Literature. Originally published in 1813 the story is an often acerbic critique of the society Austen was born into and especially the very constrained place of women within it. Central to the story is Miss Elizabeth Bennet (played as if the role was written for her by Keira Knightley – pictured above). She is the 2nd eldest of five Bennet girls all who need to be married off if their family are not to lose the estate they have grown up on. The eldest daughter Jane is considered the beauty of the family and the local area who, it is assumed, will marry very well indeed. Lizzie is the family cynic and thinker - always with her nose in a book. I fell in love with her in the film (and not just because she is played by the pretty and oh so serious Ms Knightley), the BBC series and in the book. She is most definitely my kind of woman!

The rather complicated plot revolves around a series of misunderstandings. At a ball held in the local hall we are introduced to several visiting members of the landed gentry – Mr Bingley played by Simon Woods (with a reported income of 10 thousand a year) and Mr Darcy played by a rather disappointing Matthew Macfadyen (with an even larger income of 20 thousand a year). Mr Bingley falls head over heels with Jane Bennet and there is a definite spark between Mr Darcey and Lizzie. However, because of both pride and prejudice on both sides their relationship is a very challenging one indeed. Although incredibly romantic – I lost count of the number of heartfelt sighs emanating from the entire audience – this film is also incredibly funny. Austen’s writing is well observed and very witty indeed. The book, which is one of my all time favourites, is, if anything, even funnier. I found myself chuckling along to Austen’s insightful comments and dialogue that oozed some of the deepest most cutting sarcasm I have ever read. A great deal of this made it – sometimes word for word – into the movie. The sparring dialogue, especially between Lizzie and Darcy, is like watching an expert martial arts contest – using only words and whit. It is quite simply brilliant. I found myself, again to an even greater degree in the book, simply speechless at the genius of the writing. Coupled with this the cinematography throughout the film is impeccable. I loved it from the opening few minutes. The camera glides through scenes in a way that often defies description. Just watching the way scenes are filmed is a delight in itself and adds, if any addition was required, to the overall feel of this movie as a work of art. As you can tell by now I loved this film. With a superb supporting cast – special mention must be made of Donald Sutherland and Brenda Blethyn as Mr and Mrs Bennet – this was a delight to watch from start to finish. All that is left is to find my own Lizzie. After all, it is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife……

Cartoon Time.

I've just surprised myself.

I've been playing with the new Blog Template - which I've decided I like - and have been rearranging (and adding to) a few labels - now on the right. I was surprised to discover that I've posted over 100 items on Atheism. These include articles by other Atheists, book reviews, videos and my thoughts on the subject. What surprised me was the volume of posts. Although I am indeed an Atheist I do not consider this to be an Atheist Blog - just a Blog by someone who happens to be an Atheist. Maybe it's a bigger part of who I am than I original thought.... [muses]

I've bitten the bullet and updated my Blog Template. It's a first stab, but I think it's OK so far.....

Just Finished Reading: Slayers and their Vampires: A Cultural History of Killing the Dead by Bruce A McClelland

With my known interest in (most) things vampiric I could hardly resist such a book. Adapted from his PhD thesis – and how cool is that – this is a very readable account of the origins of the vampire myth and, more importantly, the changing role of the vampire slayer. Originating in the Austro-Hungarian Empire – particularly Serbia – the vampire myth appeared to be the product of the clash of Christian and pagan beliefs possibly dating as far back as the 6th century only taking on a more recognisably modern form from the 11th Century onwards. Yet it was only with the much later 19th century cultural cross-over into Western literature, exemplified by Bram Stoker’s Dracula, that we get both the slayer and the vampire in a form we are all familiar with. This is, however, very different from its Slavic origins to the point of being almost unrecognisable. Vampires, McClelland contends, were specific examples of scapegoats within a particular community who could be used as a means to explain mysterious incidents and whose ‘killing’ could be used as a way of cleansing a village of supernatural fear. Our modern, western vampire is an outgrowth of those beliefs distorted by our own cultural heritage. Likewise the slayer, originally an outcast, and often a half-vampire themselves, has been transformed by Stoker and more recently in TV shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, into almost super-hero status.

I certainly know more of the origins of the vampire myth than ever before. I can also see where people like Stoker and Joss Wheddon must have picked up some of their ideas from. It is interesting to see how cultural ideas such as these develop and transform over time and across cultural boundaries. In a culture becoming increasingly obsessed with youth and the promise of immortality it is unsurprising that vampires have become so iconic, even revered. This book puts both the vampires themselves, as well as those dedicated to their destruction, into both historical and cultural perspective. I shall certainly be picking up on much more of the symbolism the next time I watch a vampire movie or an episode of Buffy. This is definitely a work for anyone with more than a passing interest in vampire lore. Recommended.

Cartoon Time.

My Favourite Movies: Queen of the Damned

Surprisingly, taking into account my love of vampire movies and the fact that Queen of the Damned is my favourite Ann Rice book, I never saw this at the movies. I had read that the movie was so bad as hardly to be believed – so I decided to save some money and give it a miss. Big mistake.

Months later I saw it in the cheap bin at one of my local video stores and chanced a few pound thinking if it was as bad as people had said I could pass it on to a friend. I was rather surprised, therefore, at just how good this movie was. Cobbled together from pieces of the books The Vampire Lestat and the sequel Queen of the Damned this told the story of Lestat (who we met in Interview with the Vampire played by Tom Cruise) - in this version played by the rather odd Stuart Townsend – who is awakened from a long sleep by the sound of rock music. Deciding on a whim to become a global rock star he takes over the band and hits the big time. This predictably annoys his fellow nightwalkers who decide to make him permanently dead rather than simply un-dead. Enter the vampire Queen Akasha (played by Aaliyah) who decides to come back from a very long sleep indeed in order to recreate her hell on Earth she had left behind in Ancient Egypt. In the middle of all of this is Jessie, descendent of generations looked after by her ‘Aunt’. Jessie is a new member of a shadowy group of academics called The Talamasca who monitor supernatural activities without interfering in them. Jessie become fascinated with Lestat and wants him to ‘make’ her.

I honestly love this film. Townsend is suitably weird, other-worldly and massively egotistical as Lestat should be. Aaliyah is even more off the reservation as the millennia old queen of all the vampires. There are interesting flash backs telling how Lestat was ‘made’ by Marius which filled in some interesting back-story and there was, of course, a lot of pretty good music. The icing on the cake for me was the beautiful Marguerite Moreau who played the vampire wannabe Jessie. Of course much of why I liked the book so much failed to appear in the movie – the centuries long activity of The Talamasca and the definitive history of vampire kind (except in the book the origin of the first vampire Akasha seemed shrouded in a fair degree of mysticism). Nevertheless, this was a creditable stab at a difficult book to film and is, I think, an important addition to vampire cinema. If you haven’t seen it or haven’t seen it for a while I can recommend spending 100 minutes of your life doing so. Oh, and if you like the music as much as I do you should find that the MTV style videos are on the DVD too which I thought was a very nice touch.

Cartoon Time.