Samuel Mason Monthly Connection October

                Last month, as I did my blog on a fairly sensitive, serious subject, I decided this month’s blog could relate to a more open and creative topic.  What happens when those being ridiculed through satire realize that they are the focus of the satire?  Do those being criticized understand their apparent flaws, strive to change, are confused, in denial, or just outraged?  In The Importance of Being Earnest nobody bursts onto the scene at the end of the play and informs the characters they are the being used to portray the corrupt morals of upper class Victorian society.  In this specific case, surely Oscar Wilde could not have been the only one to criticize the upper class Victorian society.  But did any radical changes occur in Victorian virtues and values because of these?  With this in mind, I question the effectiveness of satire, and the real motives behind those who write satires.

                It is assumed that the object of satire is to possibly bring about an improvement to a behavior, but is this always the case?  I think it is safe to say that it is certainly not.  Satire in my opinion is the equivalent of making fun of someone behind their back, with the supposed intention that the information will eventually trickle down to them.  Sometimes the “offenders” in the eyes of the satire writers may live in oblivion and never realize for a moment that they are being criticized.  If this information were however to arrive to the consciousness of the “offenders”, I believe that they would respond with retaliation, or denial.  It’s embarrassing to have the importance or seriousness of your customs, beliefs, or actions analyzed to find fault for everyone to see. 

In real life, people well aware of being the “butt” of satire don’t tend to respond lovingly.  This month, after reading The Importance of Being Earnest, I realized how many times a day I hear someone use shortened versions of just what Oscar Wilde used in his play.  Just because somebody doesn’t write and publish their mockery of other people’s actions, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have satirical elements.  Simply making fun of people can incorporate reducing the seriousness of importance of a belief or subject through imitation.  Ridiculing ideas or people can either result as being considered “burn,” or a “flop.”  I believe sometimes teenagers like me subconsciously differentiate between the two depending on the quality of the satirical approach to the mockery.  A successful “satire” can cause a person to realize their flaws or illogical beliefs, and invoke feelings of saltiness in them.  But I for one have never heard of a success story.   

I personally believe that if one truly wants to improve behavior, than satire is not the best choice for going about this.  Unfortunately in many cases, teenagers don’t even have these ends in mind.  They make fun of each other with mini satires not for effectiveness in changing their world for the better, but for the fun and pleasure they get through doing it.  Ultimately I believe satire benefits the giver more than the receiver.

September Monthly Connection

Minding Our Business

This month’s blog, my first blog, is inspired by Beowulf, the one small piece of literature that I actually have read and examined in this class.  My inspiration comes from the first half of this classic poem.

We clearly see in the poem that strong relationships between nations or peoples can be beneficial and costly.  When the Danes are distressed, Beowulf gathers fourteen Geat men to be warriors (with the support of the elders and people of their nation, Geatland) and goes to the aid of Hrothgar, the Danish King, in his distress.  Their work and heroism, especially Beowulf’s, ended the carnage spread by Grendel, and Grendel’s mother, but at a cost.  This raises the question of whether or not nations should “mind their own business” or help each other when in need.  I personally believe the benefits of people working together and helping each other when in need outweigh greatly any costs. Despite my opinion I am going to analyze BOTH sides of the argument and relate them to Beowulf, and current situations in our world.

The victory against Grendel did have negative connotations.  For example, Grendel’s defeat greatly angered Grendel’s mother, who came to attack at Heorot.  Fortunately for the Danes, Beowulf defeated Grendel’s mother as well.  However, potentially, Grendel’s mother could have retaliated with greater force and created even more problems for the Danes AND the Geats (now that they involved themselves).  There were also Geat deaths, and great damage done to the Mead hall.  I believe though that the benefits of creating peace for an entire nation and saving many more lives than were lost outweigh the negative connotations.  In addition to creating peace for the Danes, a special bond is forged between the Geats and the Danes now.   I would think that if the Geats are ever in trouble now, the Danes would surely come to their help!

In the real world, Geatland can kind of be compared to the United States.  We are famous for going into other countries and helping them when we infer that they need our help, and that is exactly what some Geat people did.  Needless to say, it was very beneficial to the nation being helped; as they could not end the reign of terror caused by Grendel unilaterally.  But with Beowulf’s help, the fighting against Grendel’s reign of terror became multilateral and Grendel was defeated.  After the September 11^th terrorist attacks, NATO countries came right to America’s aid in fighting terrorism in Afghanistan, and major Al Qaeda leaders were defeated more quickly. 

With this said, the presence of a foreign country inside another nation is not always welcome.  One of Al Qaeda’s main motives for attacks against the United States is to expel American soldiers from the Middle East.  This contrary reception to help is similar to Unferth’s reaction to Beowulf’s presence in Heorot.  Unferth challenges Beowulf’s ability to resolve the problem at hand.  Now at this point many would argue that a nation’s “not minding their own business” is too intrusive and inappropriate.  This is where I would argue that it is the fashion with which we “intrude” that makes all the difference.  Beowulf could have responded disrespectfully to Unferth’s “discordant note”, but instead he corrects Unferth in his statement, reiterates and proves his capability of resolving the problem.  Now I am not saying that the United States has every right to have a military presence in the Middle East, but if it is realistically beneficial and accepted by the nation receiving the help, the presence is justified.  In the case of the Geats and Danes, the Danes, save Unferth, happily accepted the Geat aid. 

Another issue that comes to mind when dealing with foreign help is dependency.  I think in the real world, we should be careful as to how we help each other out. Imagine if the Geats never have another problem but the Danes do, over and over again.  What are they going to do if the Geats can’t help and who are they going to constantly rely on?  This reminds me of how Western aid is administered in Africa.  The aid helps the Africans immensely and provides the opportunity for basic survival, but after the aid is gone, the Africans can have even more problems than before.  While some western relief organizations are in Africa, they help in “western” ways, and not “African” ways.  This leads to problems, as Africans think like Africans and westerners think like westerners. The Africans later cannot sustain themselves in the new environment the westerners created.  Western aid, in my opinion, should be administered in a way that when the westerners leave, the Africans can pick up where it was left off at and continue independently.    

In conclusion, I firmly believe that as humans with problems, we have the responsibility to help each other out as we can. Not one person, nation, or people group has all the capacity it needs to combat all of their problems.  However, together, we can solve anything.  We just need to be careful how we help each other, and if we know we will make the problem worse, we really probably shouldn’t step in.