I was digging through some old movies in my cabinet and came across The Great Waltz, which was originally filmed in 1938. For the next hour and forty minutes I was charmed by its classical masterpieces that were both enormously powerful and stunningly graceful, created by composer Johann Strauss II. Some, such as The Blue Danube, were strikingly familiar, and contained enough energy to fill a palace. Others were softer and more graceful, but still got my foot tapping to the beat as I watched the characters waltz enthusiastically in the black and white motion picture.
In particular I felt very moved by watching the autobiography, especially with the artistic inspiration and sympathy that I received. Johann Strauss II was a musical protege from the start of the movie, portrayed as one who could not leave his passion as he secretly scrawled music scores whilst working as a banker. When he is fired for slacking on the job, I felt reminded so that there was a great difficulty to become financially stable when living as an artist. Later in the movie when he first becomes successful and signs a contract to a member of the Imperial Palace, thus agreeing to hand over every piece of completed music he writes, I feel that he had attached himself to something that perhaps did not fully appreciate his abilities - for personally I felt that no amount of money could substitute or be exchanged for his composition. When he becomes married and thus very financially comfortable, there is a sudden sense of anxiety and bitterness, for I felt that he was caught between two different worlds and decisions. Despite having everything he could have possibly wanted materialistically - money, fame in Vienna, and wife - the only way he could continue to further pursue his musical passion was to give even more of himself to the Imperial Palace.
The matters were complicated when the opera soprano Carla Donner seems to be the only one who really appreciates his ability for writing such brilliant waltz pieces. Yet she is a member of the Imperial Palace, and thus visibly puts pressure onto the marriage between Strauss and his wife with her love for his music. The beginnings of an affair between her and Strauss came across to me as even more tragic because for Strauss, he could only take his zest for music further by being with a woman such as Carla, who understood his passion more than his wife. Strauss realized that although he was socially and financially happy, spiritually he was not because his own passion could not progress unless he hurt someone important in his life.
I felt a strong pull towards the portrayal of the young artist in The Great Waltz. There was the brooding atmosphere of trouble when Strauss is pulled into an affair with Carla, and for me there was even more pain because I saw his music could only progress by moving past what he currently had. When his own wife was so devoted to his welfare and happiness, Strauss still could not afford to lose his grip upon his passion, and here the tug of war began erupting even further. What compounded the problem was his integration and interaction with the rich: the close friends of Strauss particularly did not prefer the rich, and this is peaked with the revolution that occurs later in the movie. Here Strauss puts even his own social bonds and connections at risk here for the pursuit of his passion and love, and I found myself looking at the plight of an artist as he faced such pressures and restrictions. I always saw it as too unfortunate when one delved too much into the arts that they neglected their family and loved ones, but after viewing The Great Waltz I saw it as almost inevitable - or at the very least very likely to happen. And with that I found myself wondering if I would have to deal with such a frightening dilemma if I were to pour myself into an artistic passion. Would there still be room for anyone or anything else in my life? Or would my only love be what I was creating?
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Friday, January 2, 2009
The Calligrapher
He was a man no older than forty. His serious face became even more stern as his brow furrowed with concentration. Instead of brush writing on a table or platform, he used the jagged concrete street surface.
The skill of his East Asian calligraphy was unquestionable. The thing that drew the crowd around him was his lack of something we all take for granted: his two hands.
It was four in the afternoon in one of the busiest locations in Hong Kong: the sprawling district of Mong Kok. With the nearly interminable Nathan Road that runs through it, traffic can stream through here all day long. Add that to the magnitude of pedestrian shoppers that filter through its alleys and sideways, and it's just chaos all very local to Hong Kong. Today I had just finished a periodic visit to my dentist, and as I began heading back towards the Mass Transit Railway (MTR) station through a road that mainly sold electronics, I noticed a line of people all motionless in the middle of the street.
I slowed and moved over to join the line, which soon began to elongate into a gathering throng of people twenty-strong. It was a young man alone on the street, with great big sheets of thin paper called XuanZhi 宣紙 paper laid out on the rough concrete before him. On the ground beside where he crouched were a couple of dirty Bonaqua water bottles, a cracked inkstone, and a small circular seal paste plate. Between the dry blackened remaining stubs of his arms clasped a battered and decrepit paintbrush.
My chest tightened as I saw a small pouch lying near the set of phrases he was currently working on. He was begging for money - a few pieces of change that the enthusiastic shoppers of the bustling electronics and hardware stores around him may want to get rid of. He continued writing without pause, at times using his teeth to straighten and realign the thick paintbrush that sat neatly in between his two arms, which were severed at the wrist. I felt myself wondering what tragedy could have befallen this unfortunate man. Could it have been a deformity from birth? Had he suffered a devastating burn or injury that resulted in amputation? Was it a devastating accident that he experienced during his previous job as a carpenter or blacksmith, which could've been very well-paying? I felt these questions bombard me as I continued to silently eye the painting calligrapher, who let the brush dance elegantly under his control. One would have needed the practice for several years to achieve the standard he was producing before my eyes at that moment. And even so it would be with all ten fingers and a very dexterous wrist: I couldn't let myself imagine what sort of hardship this man experienced without the prehensile hands we took for granted. Had he been this skillful before he had lost the lower halves of his arms? Or had he been forced to adapt a different way of calligraphy due to his physical ability - and still managed to create something so artistically masterful?
The phrases he wrote were all ancient Chinese sayings: ways of the word spoken by philosophers and scholars and emperors alike. They embodied a very traditional aspect: four characters per line, which could have vast symbolic meanings. Between his focused and delicate strokes observers moved forwards to drop a few coins into the small pouch that openly displayed its empty interior to the crowd. The clinking of metal upon metal triggered the man to look up from his work and nod at the generous act, as he crinkled his haggard face into a sad smile, and verbally expressed his thanks out loud before continuing with his writing.
It took no longer than five minutes before he gently laid the brush down onto the inkstone, wiping his forehead with what remained of his forearm. He then hopped backwards and used his feet to slowly nudge the seal paste plate forward, where he then hoisted the metal container to his mouth and pried open the cap using his teeth. The bright red paste was used to imprint his name onto the completed work as a sign of his own craftsmanship and creation, serving as the artist's signature upon his piece of brushwriting. The seal itself was made of gray stone - no longer than a finger - and the calligrapher fumbled with it for sometime before he finally managed to dip it into the sticky paste and stamp it onto the sheet. A nearby onlooker knelt down to inspect the writing more closely, before nodding and dropping a couple of money notes into the small pouch before rolling up the paper and carrying it off with him.
Beside the calligrapher were a couple of already completed sheets, held down at the corners by the empty seal box and some half-filled water bottles. The wind ruffled the edges and began lifting the bottom of the sheet, but it was very legible to onlookers as they crowded round to admire his work and at the same time feel a stinging in their hearts at his downtrodden condition. One of the Chinese proverbs I found the most meaningful was this one:
(The proverb is read from right to left:自強不息)
Translated, its meaning referred to the mindset of constantly standing strong for yourself and no one else. It emphasized self-improvement and self-governance: the strength of willpower for the individual only. This struck me has incredible apt, because here we had the calligrapher fending entirely for himself on the streets of Mong Kok. His physical disability could have always had the potential to faze his artistic talent and abilities, but instead of allowing that to heavily affect him he fought onwards. Even without individual fingers to guide his brush and a palm to steady his strokes, the calligrapher amazed every onlooker with his poise, accuracy, and grace. The elegance of his work was unquestionable: and here the very proverb he was writing out to sell to other people was an ancient philosophy that he was still living by in today's ruthless modern world. The strength of his own willpower was incredible, and that afternoon I felt myself feel inspired by this calligrapher, knowing it meant even more so that things we take for granted should instead be appreciated to an even greater extent.
The entrance into the year of 2009 probably hit the world in showers of sparkling lights, excitement, and exploding fireworks. People of Hong Kong were rushing out to get their hands onto great deals in the stores on the street as monetary issues become more and more difficult to handle. But amidst such energy, this calligrapher was a reminder of how the strength of an individual truly should not be underestimated - and more importantly one thing we cannot take for granted either.
The skill of his East Asian calligraphy was unquestionable. The thing that drew the crowd around him was his lack of something we all take for granted: his two hands.
It was four in the afternoon in one of the busiest locations in Hong Kong: the sprawling district of Mong Kok. With the nearly interminable Nathan Road that runs through it, traffic can stream through here all day long. Add that to the magnitude of pedestrian shoppers that filter through its alleys and sideways, and it's just chaos all very local to Hong Kong. Today I had just finished a periodic visit to my dentist, and as I began heading back towards the Mass Transit Railway (MTR) station through a road that mainly sold electronics, I noticed a line of people all motionless in the middle of the street.
I slowed and moved over to join the line, which soon began to elongate into a gathering throng of people twenty-strong. It was a young man alone on the street, with great big sheets of thin paper called XuanZhi 宣紙 paper laid out on the rough concrete before him. On the ground beside where he crouched were a couple of dirty Bonaqua water bottles, a cracked inkstone, and a small circular seal paste plate. Between the dry blackened remaining stubs of his arms clasped a battered and decrepit paintbrush.
My chest tightened as I saw a small pouch lying near the set of phrases he was currently working on. He was begging for money - a few pieces of change that the enthusiastic shoppers of the bustling electronics and hardware stores around him may want to get rid of. He continued writing without pause, at times using his teeth to straighten and realign the thick paintbrush that sat neatly in between his two arms, which were severed at the wrist. I felt myself wondering what tragedy could have befallen this unfortunate man. Could it have been a deformity from birth? Had he suffered a devastating burn or injury that resulted in amputation? Was it a devastating accident that he experienced during his previous job as a carpenter or blacksmith, which could've been very well-paying? I felt these questions bombard me as I continued to silently eye the painting calligrapher, who let the brush dance elegantly under his control. One would have needed the practice for several years to achieve the standard he was producing before my eyes at that moment. And even so it would be with all ten fingers and a very dexterous wrist: I couldn't let myself imagine what sort of hardship this man experienced without the prehensile hands we took for granted. Had he been this skillful before he had lost the lower halves of his arms? Or had he been forced to adapt a different way of calligraphy due to his physical ability - and still managed to create something so artistically masterful?
The phrases he wrote were all ancient Chinese sayings: ways of the word spoken by philosophers and scholars and emperors alike. They embodied a very traditional aspect: four characters per line, which could have vast symbolic meanings. Between his focused and delicate strokes observers moved forwards to drop a few coins into the small pouch that openly displayed its empty interior to the crowd. The clinking of metal upon metal triggered the man to look up from his work and nod at the generous act, as he crinkled his haggard face into a sad smile, and verbally expressed his thanks out loud before continuing with his writing.It took no longer than five minutes before he gently laid the brush down onto the inkstone, wiping his forehead with what remained of his forearm. He then hopped backwards and used his feet to slowly nudge the seal paste plate forward, where he then hoisted the metal container to his mouth and pried open the cap using his teeth. The bright red paste was used to imprint his name onto the completed work as a sign of his own craftsmanship and creation, serving as the artist's signature upon his piece of brushwriting. The seal itself was made of gray stone - no longer than a finger - and the calligrapher fumbled with it for sometime before he finally managed to dip it into the sticky paste and stamp it onto the sheet. A nearby onlooker knelt down to inspect the writing more closely, before nodding and dropping a couple of money notes into the small pouch before rolling up the paper and carrying it off with him.
Beside the calligrapher were a couple of already completed sheets, held down at the corners by the empty seal box and some half-filled water bottles. The wind ruffled the edges and began lifting the bottom of the sheet, but it was very legible to onlookers as they crowded round to admire his work and at the same time feel a stinging in their hearts at his downtrodden condition. One of the Chinese proverbs I found the most meaningful was this one:
(The proverb is read from right to left:自強不息)Translated, its meaning referred to the mindset of constantly standing strong for yourself and no one else. It emphasized self-improvement and self-governance: the strength of willpower for the individual only. This struck me has incredible apt, because here we had the calligrapher fending entirely for himself on the streets of Mong Kok. His physical disability could have always had the potential to faze his artistic talent and abilities, but instead of allowing that to heavily affect him he fought onwards. Even without individual fingers to guide his brush and a palm to steady his strokes, the calligrapher amazed every onlooker with his poise, accuracy, and grace. The elegance of his work was unquestionable: and here the very proverb he was writing out to sell to other people was an ancient philosophy that he was still living by in today's ruthless modern world. The strength of his own willpower was incredible, and that afternoon I felt myself feel inspired by this calligrapher, knowing it meant even more so that things we take for granted should instead be appreciated to an even greater extent.
The entrance into the year of 2009 probably hit the world in showers of sparkling lights, excitement, and exploding fireworks. People of Hong Kong were rushing out to get their hands onto great deals in the stores on the street as monetary issues become more and more difficult to handle. But amidst such energy, this calligrapher was a reminder of how the strength of an individual truly should not be underestimated - and more importantly one thing we cannot take for granted either.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Ashes of the Wake
Shrieking vocals, galloping guitars and high-speed drums fly out of speakers when this CD plays. Nine out of the eleven tracks on the album will kick off with a steady explosion of heavily distorted instruments, all storming out with incredible rage, power, and ferocity. Those new or unfamiliar with the genre of metal will contort their faces in disgust, protesting that this was a shame to the name of music. So why do so many turn their heads away? If the audible sounds are too disconcerting for the average ear, many people drown out the lyrics or possible themes because of the assumption that it's "too loud" or "too messy" to have meaning. And that, ladies and gents, is completely off the charts.
Many a review focus upon the music content and technicality of the album, accessing it from a musical rather than a thematic and symbolic perspective. Don't get me wrong; I certainly dig those reviews and articles about albums, but in particular this one can be a real shame to overlook, particularly when it is one of Lamb of God's most motivational. The album centrally aims at the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Songs that prominently highlight this theme are "Now You've Got Something To Die For", "The Faded Line", "Laid To Rest", and the album-titled song "Ashes Of The Wake". In a quick overview, the lyrics contained on all the songs involve the persona directing negative emotions - betrayal, hate, rage, and frustration - towards entities that represent efforts of the war. It is even more interesting to see that out of all the songs on CD, the album-titled track is the only one that does not contain any lyrics. This is interesting to note because there the presence of two guest guitarists formerly from other heavy metal bands Megadeth and Testament adds to the intensity of the music, thus almost pushing away and eliminating the need for words.
The first track of the album "Laid To Rest" contains the words "The blood's on the wall, so you might just well admit it". This seems directed towards the US government that not only instigated the war, but claimed that the violation of UN policies and global image of powerful Western influence mercilessly invading a lesser country was completely justified. The lyrics assert that contrary to administrative claims, the damage has been inevitably caused, and it is more brutal and ruthless than was ever initially regarded. The more political motives of this album is evident via examination of the frequent repetition of expletives contained in the latter part of this track. "See who gives a f----!" is heard between intervals of slow and controlled sequences of unvaried low notes on the guitar. This "breakdown" technique effectively instills a strong collective atmosphere of rage and motion that peaks during this point of the song - reflective of the strong protest towards the war. The sheer ferocity of this track rips out through the air and postulates the pure incredulity of the 2003 invasion.
The second track on the album is named "Hourglass". We are taken back in time to a series of wartime invasions here, and certainly the concept of time is a common motif throughout. The burning of draft letters - hence resistance to conscription - is evident in the lyrics "the edge of the envelope burns". The imagery of clashing gods with their insurmountable wrath and vengeance is clear in this track, outlining the ineffective and certainly overly-ambitious US government tendency to "Play God" with their peacekeeping strategies and hence seek out and destroy all forms of tyranny and abuse in today's world. The only thing left is death, and in particular we are overwhelmed with the hand of the devil from the reference to the Jewish gate to the underworld in "Gehenna has now arrived". Additionally the persona mocks upon the foolishness of those who fought for the name of their country amidst this completely unjustified invasion: "You finally made it home, draped in that flag you fell for." It connotes to foolish and naive martyrdom; a needless and unnecessary death in the name of something completely ill-fated and inhuman - all for political authority.
"Now You've Got Something To Die For" is another song written to draw attention to the foolish efforts of the war. This track seems more like a vision cast into the darkest possible result and consequence of the war, for it is metaphorically titled as a "prophecy", and it is "fulfilled" with actions of hatred, destruction, and utter chaos. The American solider is characterized as a determined bloodthirsty monster that does not stop the search for killings or murder. This is evident in the words "Lust for blood, a blind crusade", pertaining to the foolishness of the invasion, especially since the only real reason seems to be for the pure pleasure of the kill. There is very strong and violent imagery conjured, such as "raping democracy"; a sign of pure failure upon the American government with plans to enter Iraq and emerge victorious, but instead have shamelessly ruined the result they sought to accomplish.
There is a sense of entering the mindset of the fighting U.S. marine in the next track "The Faded Line." Here the lyrics are almost of a 'stream-of-consciousness' manner; the frequent high-pitched shrieks that utter the bleak adjectives "hopeless...emptiness...colorless" are like desperate cries for help and salvation. This is a catalyst to the psychological breakdown of the solider; the fact that he may be coming to terms with his crimes of war that he has no choice but to continue undertaking, because they are the orders of his high-command. The "promise" mentioned in this track is almost a reference to the original aims and intentions of the U.S. government; to establish a democratic office within the country of Iraq in order to rid it of tyranny and exploitation. Yet these plans have more than just backfired; we can see that it is now just a "silence" and hence a definite shadow of the former promise it once was.
A common definition for the next track "Omerta" is a code of silence. This term stemmed from areas such as Sicily or Campania, where organizations such as the Mafia reigned powerfully. It extends down to those who serve them; in that if they are convicted of a crime, they will remain silent and will not protest to provide any further information, even if they are falsely accused. Thus, this was used to prevent the leaking of information about more powerful figures within the organization, giving them confidence that lessers within the party will take the blame for them and allow them walk unblamed. This track of the Lamb of God album is the slowest pace, but provides definite power and force. The spoken introduction by vocalist Randy Blythe serves to add a sinister beginning to the song, highlighting the importance of the honor code within fighters. It underlines the procedure of those subject themselves to falling obedient to the code of silence, and illustrates them to end up twisted and a shadow of their former selves. The slower part of the song highlights the mind of the organization in power, offering a certain comfort to one who is yet to be recruited. The pounding of the instruments - a slow, yet brutal rhythmic pulse - is an indoctrination that drums into the mind of the recruit, making sure he is capable of serving. Then as the track rips into a faster pace, higher-energy section, we have the solider faced with the enormity of his actions; the fact that his fate is now tied with the silence of his mouth, and if he speaks foolishly, his life will go with it. The mistake of "a slip of the tongue" will only result in death, which is evident in "a slit of the throat". Furthermore the lyrics "Keep my name from your mouth forever" pertains to the mastermind of the organization kept secret, and the fact that the song concludes with "Sing for me now" suggests that there will always be new recruits that are willing to offer themselves up...always new recruits ready to die for the crimes of someone wielding them as pawns.
The chunky guitar riffs and irregular drum patterns in "Blood Of The Scribe" reflect the sudden realization of the solider in battle. He realizes that there is imminent death within serving to fight this war, whether it be killed in action or surviving but becoming scarred by the results for life. We have him entering a delusion mindset; the insomnia in "sleepless" as well as loss of faith in "hopeless" serves to tie in with the connotations of graves and burial. His entrapment is evident in the lyrics "Climb the walls till nails bleed, rip the hair, tair the seems, break the glass", where the final vestiges of his composure are finally dissolving to provide very violent imagery of his breakdown. The vampire is a representation of the solider, for he is killing for blood and has no other purpose. Blythe's bloodcurdling scream "sun" reflects the marine's hunger for sunlight; a metaphor for salvation and liberation from such a hellish reality that he must remain in. Hence, the scribe is the general that reports back to the U.S. Army about the situation against the insurgents, but of course the blood he writes with comes from the solider.
The lyrics of "One Gun", the next track of the album, illustrate the intentions of those who live and die for their country. The characterization through the eyes of a sniper at the beginning of the song suggest a concealed but deadly threat that is always watching. The title "One Gun" refers to the mockery of the salute of honor to martyrs; the lyrics "a one gun salute for the new Independence Day" connotes to an outrageous act of dying for your nation and then being remembered on the country's national holiday. The prominent message of this track is the satirizing of how glorious sacrifice really is; on the surface it seems beyond honor that one should die in the name of their country - that one should sacrifice themselves for their nation. But through the eyes of the solider we see that it is a completely overrated concept; that sacrifice for the longevity of your country will prompt the government to do nothing better, and that your death will have only been in vain. The repetition of "They'll hallow your name" is almost ironic, because through this constant veneration of your name and how you are honored because you died in your country's name, it does not make a difference at all when the U.S. government will still proceed and see thousands others die without batting an eyelid.
Beginning with a thin moment of guitar instrumental before the vocals kick in, "Break You" is the shortest track of the album. The imagery conjured up is dynamic and violent: "cut by the dawn razor" ; "whipping the nightmares to a froth" all suggest brutal force of dehumanizing style. These violent lyrics seem directed towards the U.S. government, where "The empire of lies to whom you pandered" . This suggests that they seemed to have waned from their original intentions to cleanse Iraq of terrorism and fear, and have instead turned to killings and torture and interrogation that all ignored human rights and standards. Furthermore, the controversy behind their real intention to invade and hence control the oil stocks of the Middle Easy can also be reflected in the "pandered", thus illustrating their catering to lower tastes and hence exploiting the resources of the area. The hatred escalates in the words "You taught me hate, I'll teach you fear", where the lessons taught by the army are soon sought to be reversed, with the solider relaying his venom back onto his commanders who cannot see past their blind and foolish mission. This intensity peaks with the ferocious ending of the song "Son of a bitch, I'm going to rape you. Son of a bitch, I'm going to break you", conjuring up brutal images that are reflected in Blythe's chilling, bloodcurdling shrieks.
"What I've Become" is a track that underlines the sequence of events when the solider is viewed as a total stranger amongst familiar faces he once knew. The lyrics "Blank stares from broken men" serves as a grim reminder of the total monster he has become in the eyes of those who once knew him, for he has mutated into a killer in simple terms, obeying or disobeying his orders. The religious speakings "You giveth, I taketh away" suggest that there are meddling and defying with the intentions of God - that their actions of inhumanity and cruelty will earn them eternal punishment. The solider realizes that he is nothing more than a mere pawn in the grander scheme of things; the words "Take your place in the line to be ground by the gears of the masterpiece" serve to show that he is simply another piece of the puzzle; a mere number amidst the enormous equation to try and defeat terror in a staggering full-scale invasion. His death will therefore count as nothing; even as martyr he will achieve nothing, and the repetition of "betrayal" further stabs out accusations towards the U.S. government, further reinforcing the bitter feeling of isolation and abandonment he is experiencing.
The album-named track "Ashes of the Wake" is one that contains no lyrics, other than that of an alleged U.S. Marine who served in the army and fought in the Iraq war. The mechanical tone in which he first speaks characterizes the commands that were mostly given to him by his superior commanders in an empty and meaningless way. He mentions that the war had become "an eradication", thus pertaining to the way the war had deteriorated down to nothing but a carnage. In the same manner the U.S. invasion of Iraq reflected this attitude; indeed it was becoming another war in Vietnam once more. Only the numbers of killed terrorists mattered each day; the mission relied upon taking out potential enemies that - most of the time - where nothing more than innocent civilians. The track has a complex rhythm and choppy guitar riffs; an overview of the turbulence that the war would ultimately result in. Furthermore, the inclusion of solo guitarists from other metal bands - Chris Poland, former Megadeth guitarist and Alex Skolnick, former Testament guitarist - illustrates the full intensity of the war, for the fiery solos that erupt on this track are double the magnitude, and that means double the aggression.
Many a review focus upon the music content and technicality of the album, accessing it from a musical rather than a thematic and symbolic perspective. Don't get me wrong; I certainly dig those reviews and articles about albums, but in particular this one can be a real shame to overlook, particularly when it is one of Lamb of God's most motivational. The album centrally aims at the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Songs that prominently highlight this theme are "Now You've Got Something To Die For", "The Faded Line", "Laid To Rest", and the album-titled song "Ashes Of The Wake". In a quick overview, the lyrics contained on all the songs involve the persona directing negative emotions - betrayal, hate, rage, and frustration - towards entities that represent efforts of the war. It is even more interesting to see that out of all the songs on CD, the album-titled track is the only one that does not contain any lyrics. This is interesting to note because there the presence of two guest guitarists formerly from other heavy metal bands Megadeth and Testament adds to the intensity of the music, thus almost pushing away and eliminating the need for words.
The first track of the album "Laid To Rest" contains the words "The blood's on the wall, so you might just well admit it". This seems directed towards the US government that not only instigated the war, but claimed that the violation of UN policies and global image of powerful Western influence mercilessly invading a lesser country was completely justified. The lyrics assert that contrary to administrative claims, the damage has been inevitably caused, and it is more brutal and ruthless than was ever initially regarded. The more political motives of this album is evident via examination of the frequent repetition of expletives contained in the latter part of this track. "See who gives a f----!" is heard between intervals of slow and controlled sequences of unvaried low notes on the guitar. This "breakdown" technique effectively instills a strong collective atmosphere of rage and motion that peaks during this point of the song - reflective of the strong protest towards the war. The sheer ferocity of this track rips out through the air and postulates the pure incredulity of the 2003 invasion.
The second track on the album is named "Hourglass". We are taken back in time to a series of wartime invasions here, and certainly the concept of time is a common motif throughout. The burning of draft letters - hence resistance to conscription - is evident in the lyrics "the edge of the envelope burns". The imagery of clashing gods with their insurmountable wrath and vengeance is clear in this track, outlining the ineffective and certainly overly-ambitious US government tendency to "Play God" with their peacekeeping strategies and hence seek out and destroy all forms of tyranny and abuse in today's world. The only thing left is death, and in particular we are overwhelmed with the hand of the devil from the reference to the Jewish gate to the underworld in "Gehenna has now arrived". Additionally the persona mocks upon the foolishness of those who fought for the name of their country amidst this completely unjustified invasion: "You finally made it home, draped in that flag you fell for." It connotes to foolish and naive martyrdom; a needless and unnecessary death in the name of something completely ill-fated and inhuman - all for political authority.
"Now You've Got Something To Die For" is another song written to draw attention to the foolish efforts of the war. This track seems more like a vision cast into the darkest possible result and consequence of the war, for it is metaphorically titled as a "prophecy", and it is "fulfilled" with actions of hatred, destruction, and utter chaos. The American solider is characterized as a determined bloodthirsty monster that does not stop the search for killings or murder. This is evident in the words "Lust for blood, a blind crusade", pertaining to the foolishness of the invasion, especially since the only real reason seems to be for the pure pleasure of the kill. There is very strong and violent imagery conjured, such as "raping democracy"; a sign of pure failure upon the American government with plans to enter Iraq and emerge victorious, but instead have shamelessly ruined the result they sought to accomplish.
There is a sense of entering the mindset of the fighting U.S. marine in the next track "The Faded Line." Here the lyrics are almost of a 'stream-of-consciousness' manner; the frequent high-pitched shrieks that utter the bleak adjectives "hopeless...emptiness...colorless" are like desperate cries for help and salvation. This is a catalyst to the psychological breakdown of the solider; the fact that he may be coming to terms with his crimes of war that he has no choice but to continue undertaking, because they are the orders of his high-command. The "promise" mentioned in this track is almost a reference to the original aims and intentions of the U.S. government; to establish a democratic office within the country of Iraq in order to rid it of tyranny and exploitation. Yet these plans have more than just backfired; we can see that it is now just a "silence" and hence a definite shadow of the former promise it once was.
A common definition for the next track "Omerta" is a code of silence. This term stemmed from areas such as Sicily or Campania, where organizations such as the Mafia reigned powerfully. It extends down to those who serve them; in that if they are convicted of a crime, they will remain silent and will not protest to provide any further information, even if they are falsely accused. Thus, this was used to prevent the leaking of information about more powerful figures within the organization, giving them confidence that lessers within the party will take the blame for them and allow them walk unblamed. This track of the Lamb of God album is the slowest pace, but provides definite power and force. The spoken introduction by vocalist Randy Blythe serves to add a sinister beginning to the song, highlighting the importance of the honor code within fighters. It underlines the procedure of those subject themselves to falling obedient to the code of silence, and illustrates them to end up twisted and a shadow of their former selves. The slower part of the song highlights the mind of the organization in power, offering a certain comfort to one who is yet to be recruited. The pounding of the instruments - a slow, yet brutal rhythmic pulse - is an indoctrination that drums into the mind of the recruit, making sure he is capable of serving. Then as the track rips into a faster pace, higher-energy section, we have the solider faced with the enormity of his actions; the fact that his fate is now tied with the silence of his mouth, and if he speaks foolishly, his life will go with it. The mistake of "a slip of the tongue" will only result in death, which is evident in "a slit of the throat". Furthermore the lyrics "Keep my name from your mouth forever" pertains to the mastermind of the organization kept secret, and the fact that the song concludes with "Sing for me now" suggests that there will always be new recruits that are willing to offer themselves up...always new recruits ready to die for the crimes of someone wielding them as pawns.
The chunky guitar riffs and irregular drum patterns in "Blood Of The Scribe" reflect the sudden realization of the solider in battle. He realizes that there is imminent death within serving to fight this war, whether it be killed in action or surviving but becoming scarred by the results for life. We have him entering a delusion mindset; the insomnia in "sleepless" as well as loss of faith in "hopeless" serves to tie in with the connotations of graves and burial. His entrapment is evident in the lyrics "Climb the walls till nails bleed, rip the hair, tair the seems, break the glass", where the final vestiges of his composure are finally dissolving to provide very violent imagery of his breakdown. The vampire is a representation of the solider, for he is killing for blood and has no other purpose. Blythe's bloodcurdling scream "sun" reflects the marine's hunger for sunlight; a metaphor for salvation and liberation from such a hellish reality that he must remain in. Hence, the scribe is the general that reports back to the U.S. Army about the situation against the insurgents, but of course the blood he writes with comes from the solider.
The lyrics of "One Gun", the next track of the album, illustrate the intentions of those who live and die for their country. The characterization through the eyes of a sniper at the beginning of the song suggest a concealed but deadly threat that is always watching. The title "One Gun" refers to the mockery of the salute of honor to martyrs; the lyrics "a one gun salute for the new Independence Day" connotes to an outrageous act of dying for your nation and then being remembered on the country's national holiday. The prominent message of this track is the satirizing of how glorious sacrifice really is; on the surface it seems beyond honor that one should die in the name of their country - that one should sacrifice themselves for their nation. But through the eyes of the solider we see that it is a completely overrated concept; that sacrifice for the longevity of your country will prompt the government to do nothing better, and that your death will have only been in vain. The repetition of "They'll hallow your name" is almost ironic, because through this constant veneration of your name and how you are honored because you died in your country's name, it does not make a difference at all when the U.S. government will still proceed and see thousands others die without batting an eyelid.
Beginning with a thin moment of guitar instrumental before the vocals kick in, "Break You" is the shortest track of the album. The imagery conjured up is dynamic and violent: "cut by the dawn razor" ; "whipping the nightmares to a froth" all suggest brutal force of dehumanizing style. These violent lyrics seem directed towards the U.S. government, where "The empire of lies to whom you pandered" . This suggests that they seemed to have waned from their original intentions to cleanse Iraq of terrorism and fear, and have instead turned to killings and torture and interrogation that all ignored human rights and standards. Furthermore, the controversy behind their real intention to invade and hence control the oil stocks of the Middle Easy can also be reflected in the "pandered", thus illustrating their catering to lower tastes and hence exploiting the resources of the area. The hatred escalates in the words "You taught me hate, I'll teach you fear", where the lessons taught by the army are soon sought to be reversed, with the solider relaying his venom back onto his commanders who cannot see past their blind and foolish mission. This intensity peaks with the ferocious ending of the song "Son of a bitch, I'm going to rape you. Son of a bitch, I'm going to break you", conjuring up brutal images that are reflected in Blythe's chilling, bloodcurdling shrieks.
"What I've Become" is a track that underlines the sequence of events when the solider is viewed as a total stranger amongst familiar faces he once knew. The lyrics "Blank stares from broken men" serves as a grim reminder of the total monster he has become in the eyes of those who once knew him, for he has mutated into a killer in simple terms, obeying or disobeying his orders. The religious speakings "You giveth, I taketh away" suggest that there are meddling and defying with the intentions of God - that their actions of inhumanity and cruelty will earn them eternal punishment. The solider realizes that he is nothing more than a mere pawn in the grander scheme of things; the words "Take your place in the line to be ground by the gears of the masterpiece" serve to show that he is simply another piece of the puzzle; a mere number amidst the enormous equation to try and defeat terror in a staggering full-scale invasion. His death will therefore count as nothing; even as martyr he will achieve nothing, and the repetition of "betrayal" further stabs out accusations towards the U.S. government, further reinforcing the bitter feeling of isolation and abandonment he is experiencing.
The album-named track "Ashes of the Wake" is one that contains no lyrics, other than that of an alleged U.S. Marine who served in the army and fought in the Iraq war. The mechanical tone in which he first speaks characterizes the commands that were mostly given to him by his superior commanders in an empty and meaningless way. He mentions that the war had become "an eradication", thus pertaining to the way the war had deteriorated down to nothing but a carnage. In the same manner the U.S. invasion of Iraq reflected this attitude; indeed it was becoming another war in Vietnam once more. Only the numbers of killed terrorists mattered each day; the mission relied upon taking out potential enemies that - most of the time - where nothing more than innocent civilians. The track has a complex rhythm and choppy guitar riffs; an overview of the turbulence that the war would ultimately result in. Furthermore, the inclusion of solo guitarists from other metal bands - Chris Poland, former Megadeth guitarist and Alex Skolnick, former Testament guitarist - illustrates the full intensity of the war, for the fiery solos that erupt on this track are double the magnitude, and that means double the aggression.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
46 days
This video clip was created 46 days after the terrible tragedy that struck Si Chuan province on the 12th of May 2008. It is a tribute to those who have lost everything in this disaster - including their lives.
Greatly appreciated to those who watch this video. Because by devoting your time to this tribute, you show that you care for those unfortunate victims...and that is the least the rest of us can do.
Greatly appreciated to those who watch this video. Because by devoting your time to this tribute, you show that you care for those unfortunate victims...and that is the least the rest of us can do.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Decisions Lead To Change
"Things do not change; we change." - Henry David Thoreau, Walden
A frequent question that sails into mind is this: do we ourselves cause change in our lives by making certain decisions, or are we acted upon by events that happen around us?
I agree with the former; that we as people cause change in our lives by choices. Take a look at Chairman Mao's reign over modern China: the way he governed rule and the country demonstrates this point clearly. His incredible feat of lifting China out of its backwater state of warlord rule and Western oppression owed greatly to the certain decisions that he made within his leadership. The choice to initiate The Long March in 1934-35 as GMD troops closed in on his Communist forces saved the entire political party from complete death and demise. He had been met with strong disagreement from his prior to such a decision, whom postulated that this giant retreat was outrageously cowardly and certainly not the best decision to make. Yet Mao did not allow his tenacity to abate, and pursued to carry out The Long March to save his comrades. We can therefore see that it was his decision that changed lives; we can clearly acknowledge Mao with the credit of a hero through the choice that he made.
Decades later, his choice to initiate the Cultural Revolution threw the whole country into complete chaos. His current motives at the time were to purge his political opponents, yet the chaos that followed was not catalyzed by the presence of these opponents, but instead of Mao's decision to eliminate them using brute force. Hence, this again demonstrates quite clearly that it was ultimately Mao's choice to initiate these purges that changed lives within the country on such a grand scale.
William Golding's "The Lord Of The Flies" also argues in favor of this point. Jack as the indelible desire to hunt for meat. He therefore enlists the assistance of Samneric, who happen to be tending the fire used to attract the attention of any vessels that pass their stranded island. Jack's decision to take them away from their duties in order to hunt soon leads to a missed opportunity; a ship does indeed pass the island, but because no one tended the fire because of the prospect of a hunt, the chance of certain rescue had slipped by. Therefore, it was clearly Jack's decision to initiate the hunt that affected lives the most; the missed opportunity of rescue infuriated Ralph, who excoriated Jack heavily for prioritizing hunting over the fire signal. This berating soon led to growing tensions between the two leaders, which ultimately leads to the horrific deaths at the end of the novel. Thus, from Jack's decision we can clearly see how significantly choices impact lives.
Eddie Carbone in "A View From The Bridge" completely breaks his code of honor - and even jeopardizes his personal welfare - by reporting the illegal immigrant Rodolfo, whom is scheduled to marry his niece Catherine. Eddie's unrequited love for his own niece catalyzes an insane jealousy for her, and it therefore drives him to attempt anything humanly possible to prevent her from marrying Rodolfo. Thus, he resides to reporting him to the immigration bureau, and this crucial decision under enormous pressure and irrational jealousy immediately turns his life for the worse. Rodolfo is captured, and his brother Marco swears to take revenge on Eddie for such an inhumane course of action. Eddie's obstinacy is impenetrable, leading to his death as Marco kills him. It therefore lay in Eddie's decision to report Rodolfo that ultimately causes everything; both the significant change in impression that his wife and niece have for him, and the change in his honorable character.
In conclusion, these examples from Chairman Mao Ze Dong's modernization of China, Golding's "The Lord Of The Flies", and Miller's "A View From The Bridge" clearly postulate and demonstrate that changes in our lives all owes to certain decisions that we make along the way, and not simply the events that occur around us.
A frequent question that sails into mind is this: do we ourselves cause change in our lives by making certain decisions, or are we acted upon by events that happen around us?
I agree with the former; that we as people cause change in our lives by choices. Take a look at Chairman Mao's reign over modern China: the way he governed rule and the country demonstrates this point clearly. His incredible feat of lifting China out of its backwater state of warlord rule and Western oppression owed greatly to the certain decisions that he made within his leadership. The choice to initiate The Long March in 1934-35 as GMD troops closed in on his Communist forces saved the entire political party from complete death and demise. He had been met with strong disagreement from his prior to such a decision, whom postulated that this giant retreat was outrageously cowardly and certainly not the best decision to make. Yet Mao did not allow his tenacity to abate, and pursued to carry out The Long March to save his comrades. We can therefore see that it was his decision that changed lives; we can clearly acknowledge Mao with the credit of a hero through the choice that he made.
Decades later, his choice to initiate the Cultural Revolution threw the whole country into complete chaos. His current motives at the time were to purge his political opponents, yet the chaos that followed was not catalyzed by the presence of these opponents, but instead of Mao's decision to eliminate them using brute force. Hence, this again demonstrates quite clearly that it was ultimately Mao's choice to initiate these purges that changed lives within the country on such a grand scale.
William Golding's "The Lord Of The Flies" also argues in favor of this point. Jack as the indelible desire to hunt for meat. He therefore enlists the assistance of Samneric, who happen to be tending the fire used to attract the attention of any vessels that pass their stranded island. Jack's decision to take them away from their duties in order to hunt soon leads to a missed opportunity; a ship does indeed pass the island, but because no one tended the fire because of the prospect of a hunt, the chance of certain rescue had slipped by. Therefore, it was clearly Jack's decision to initiate the hunt that affected lives the most; the missed opportunity of rescue infuriated Ralph, who excoriated Jack heavily for prioritizing hunting over the fire signal. This berating soon led to growing tensions between the two leaders, which ultimately leads to the horrific deaths at the end of the novel. Thus, from Jack's decision we can clearly see how significantly choices impact lives.
Eddie Carbone in "A View From The Bridge" completely breaks his code of honor - and even jeopardizes his personal welfare - by reporting the illegal immigrant Rodolfo, whom is scheduled to marry his niece Catherine. Eddie's unrequited love for his own niece catalyzes an insane jealousy for her, and it therefore drives him to attempt anything humanly possible to prevent her from marrying Rodolfo. Thus, he resides to reporting him to the immigration bureau, and this crucial decision under enormous pressure and irrational jealousy immediately turns his life for the worse. Rodolfo is captured, and his brother Marco swears to take revenge on Eddie for such an inhumane course of action. Eddie's obstinacy is impenetrable, leading to his death as Marco kills him. It therefore lay in Eddie's decision to report Rodolfo that ultimately causes everything; both the significant change in impression that his wife and niece have for him, and the change in his honorable character.
In conclusion, these examples from Chairman Mao Ze Dong's modernization of China, Golding's "The Lord Of The Flies", and Miller's "A View From The Bridge" clearly postulate and demonstrate that changes in our lives all owes to certain decisions that we make along the way, and not simply the events that occur around us.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Society's Iron Gauntlet
Here's a question: are we free to make choices of our own, or are we limited and restricted by the rules of society? Is it like a pair of iron gauntlets: squeezing the throat of our free will and restraining our options?
Indefinitely, we as people do not have access to freedom to make choices in life; our surrounding societies indeed limit our decisions. What pieces of evidence do I have at hand? First off, a look back in time and history; Mao's regime - especially through the Cultural Revolution - through China's rise and development as a modern country.
In 1966, China's citizens could not freely express their opinions. This was a result of Mao's burgeoning paranoia at the time; his instincts as a political leader were kicking in overdrive, because within his close cabinet of colleagues were other individuals in power that decided to run the country in another way; more economical; more free for the people. And although Mao was only chairman of the Chinese Communist Party - and hence did not possess that great strength of the army and country - he still retained massive support from China's colossal population.
Armed with many who were steadfastly loyal to him, Mao instigated the purging of all forms of opposition. Stated clearly to the public, his conditions were effusively revealed to the public, and those who opposed would be forced to relinquish their jobs, their families, and even lives. China's citizens - many who loved Mao but possessed ideas that clashed against the Chairman's ideals - could not afford to make their own choices, and instead had to hunker down and simply endure his reign. His control extended so strongly that even the education system was banned and rewritten, and students were sent to the countryside for political reform. Even textbooks used for years and years in classrooms were not limited by the rules of society, for they could have contained ideas in conflict with Mao's own. In conclusion, this sums up just how individuals are not free to make their own choices in life; not when the rules of society is close at hand.
Another example to support this claim can be found in the literature work "The Lord Of The Flies" by William Golding. Ralph and Jack are potential candidates for leadership on an island where a group of young boys are stranded, and although the latter is the oldest member and does hold the most knowledge and strength, the former becomes overall leader due to common consent and majority of votes within the society of stranded kids. This shows that even one most suitable for the role as leader - being sagacious and strongest definitely brings out benefits - is turned down by the rules of society; that majority has to win.
Still, Jack refuses to let this hinder his ways; instead of falling under Ralph's leadership, he breaks off to form his own entourage, and Piggy, who remains steadfastly loyal to Ralph, faces a dilemma of either surrendering his loyalty and live, or else be held in grave danger. This shows the corruption of a society - a newly formed one under Jack's rule - that does not allow people to freely make decisions; blackmail emerges to try and gain control over the people, and as Piggy states that his spectacles - the only thing capable of creating fire on the island - can only be used by those who follow Ralph, he is killed by Jack's minions. This shows that speaking freely and heeding his brotherhood instincts only proceeded to get one killed, indicating that society's rules had overpowered him.
Also in the form of a literary piece of evidence is Arthur Miller's "A View From The Bridge"; Rodolfo is illegally immigrated to the states from Sicily in search for work. As he stays with his young cousin, and falls in love with her daughter, Catherine, and decides to marry her, he evokes the jealousy of Eddie, Catherine's father. In turn this builds up and catalyzes Eddie's decision to report the illegal immigrant and his brother Marco to the police, despite Rodolfo's justifiable reasons of coming to America. As the two Sicilians discover their incarceration is due to Eddie's betrayal, they ruin his reputation to the local neighborhood community, for everyone views blood loyalty above all others. Eddie, despite with good reasons to follow his choice of reporting to the police, is destroyed because society views his perfectly-justifiable course of action as the lowest insult and offense, and this leads to his swift death: an ultimate symbol that society - not rationality - governs one's decisions.
In conclusion, I again state that we as individuals are not completely free to make our own choices in life, because our surrounding society's will always restricts our options. Like Mao's regime in repressing opposition; like Ralph's entourage becoming attacked; like Eddie's rational actions initiating his downfall, the rules of society influence choices and decisions, and tightly controls the freedom of individuals.
Indefinitely, we as people do not have access to freedom to make choices in life; our surrounding societies indeed limit our decisions. What pieces of evidence do I have at hand? First off, a look back in time and history; Mao's regime - especially through the Cultural Revolution - through China's rise and development as a modern country.
In 1966, China's citizens could not freely express their opinions. This was a result of Mao's burgeoning paranoia at the time; his instincts as a political leader were kicking in overdrive, because within his close cabinet of colleagues were other individuals in power that decided to run the country in another way; more economical; more free for the people. And although Mao was only chairman of the Chinese Communist Party - and hence did not possess that great strength of the army and country - he still retained massive support from China's colossal population.
Armed with many who were steadfastly loyal to him, Mao instigated the purging of all forms of opposition. Stated clearly to the public, his conditions were effusively revealed to the public, and those who opposed would be forced to relinquish their jobs, their families, and even lives. China's citizens - many who loved Mao but possessed ideas that clashed against the Chairman's ideals - could not afford to make their own choices, and instead had to hunker down and simply endure his reign. His control extended so strongly that even the education system was banned and rewritten, and students were sent to the countryside for political reform. Even textbooks used for years and years in classrooms were not limited by the rules of society, for they could have contained ideas in conflict with Mao's own. In conclusion, this sums up just how individuals are not free to make their own choices in life; not when the rules of society is close at hand.
Another example to support this claim can be found in the literature work "The Lord Of The Flies" by William Golding. Ralph and Jack are potential candidates for leadership on an island where a group of young boys are stranded, and although the latter is the oldest member and does hold the most knowledge and strength, the former becomes overall leader due to common consent and majority of votes within the society of stranded kids. This shows that even one most suitable for the role as leader - being sagacious and strongest definitely brings out benefits - is turned down by the rules of society; that majority has to win.
Still, Jack refuses to let this hinder his ways; instead of falling under Ralph's leadership, he breaks off to form his own entourage, and Piggy, who remains steadfastly loyal to Ralph, faces a dilemma of either surrendering his loyalty and live, or else be held in grave danger. This shows the corruption of a society - a newly formed one under Jack's rule - that does not allow people to freely make decisions; blackmail emerges to try and gain control over the people, and as Piggy states that his spectacles - the only thing capable of creating fire on the island - can only be used by those who follow Ralph, he is killed by Jack's minions. This shows that speaking freely and heeding his brotherhood instincts only proceeded to get one killed, indicating that society's rules had overpowered him.
Also in the form of a literary piece of evidence is Arthur Miller's "A View From The Bridge"; Rodolfo is illegally immigrated to the states from Sicily in search for work. As he stays with his young cousin, and falls in love with her daughter, Catherine, and decides to marry her, he evokes the jealousy of Eddie, Catherine's father. In turn this builds up and catalyzes Eddie's decision to report the illegal immigrant and his brother Marco to the police, despite Rodolfo's justifiable reasons of coming to America. As the two Sicilians discover their incarceration is due to Eddie's betrayal, they ruin his reputation to the local neighborhood community, for everyone views blood loyalty above all others. Eddie, despite with good reasons to follow his choice of reporting to the police, is destroyed because society views his perfectly-justifiable course of action as the lowest insult and offense, and this leads to his swift death: an ultimate symbol that society - not rationality - governs one's decisions.
In conclusion, I again state that we as individuals are not completely free to make our own choices in life, because our surrounding society's will always restricts our options. Like Mao's regime in repressing opposition; like Ralph's entourage becoming attacked; like Eddie's rational actions initiating his downfall, the rules of society influence choices and decisions, and tightly controls the freedom of individuals.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Good Communication
Everyone has lost something. And this doesn’t just go for those abstract nouns, such as destiny, love, or self-discovery. Nope, I’m talking about physical items; objects that, in the flesh, travel with us…and in turn, are lost by us.
What if you lost your house keys? Not just twenty feet from your front door, or along your neighbourhood block, but somewhere that hundreds of people pass throughout the course of the day? You would probably be swamped with fear, and then dread the explanatory confrontation with your folks back at home. What actions would you then take to try and address your loss to the public, and then maximize your chances to regaining and repossessing those keys? Communication would probably top your list, because that’s the quickest way you can get the thoughts – and hence, pressures – in your head out into the open.
Let’s define this term here; communication. A noun that refers to the interchange of various thoughts, opinions, or information through verbal or written means. In a way, this disperses the focus to quite a multifarious set of options, and the conclusion I’m about to approach is that really, the possibilities are endless. Communication can exist in endless forms.
But the principles of utilizing communication in a good manner are a completely different matter entirely. It not only refers to the quality and rhetoric of the articulation, but also the choice of delivery selected. What I mean by this, ladies and gentlemen, is that one’s success in communication can be completely unrelated and regardless of their skill in a particular area, for if the form of communication is poorly selected, you may find yourself permanently at square one.
For example, a masterful negotiator of price tags won’t get anywhere if the item of interest is fixed at a certain value. In this case, an attempt at communicating to lower this figure – in other words, bargaining – would be fruitless in such context. No matter how skilled you are in the art of persuasion, a seller cannot afford to give in to your standards at the risk of his or her job. Take the same skill to another situation, however, and the tides could change entirely, because we all know how, for a skilled negotiator, a good deal is only a few short steps away. No longer would it be like trying to wrangle meat from a tiger’s mouth; a use of good communication in the correct circumstances would definitely achieve desired results.
As I mentioned earlier, communication can exist in many forms, and one of the more popular examples is music, for it is, as many people see it, a form of language. Instruments and lyrics; all in the same big package. And then you have your audience; they listen to the ideas and thoughts you try to put across. So in terms of communication, what better way to convey a message in a good manner than to craft music your audience can properly relate to? Many music artists can shape their entire careers upon such decisions, for they know that choosing music to connect with their audience isn’t enough. For example, some rap music artists blare out life on the fast lane, presenting their indulgence to the world in albums about their newest car, their biggest house, or their latest riches. Many country music artists, on the other hand, base their lyrics on the lifestyles of average people…and most of their audience will fall into the category. Hence, understanding - managed through good communication, which was ultimately derived from a choice of selection.
So back to the lost keys? Same tactic. You have to choose the most appropriate method of delivering your thoughts across. Print out and stick notifications all around the neighbourhood? Bombard mailboxes with your phone number and address? Hit the yellow pages? Each method works; each technique can be well-practiced and polished to become a “good” form of communication. But in order to be truly successful, you must remember to fulfill the other half of the equation, in that only the correctly chosen forms of communication can present you the keys back to your front door…and the keys to infinite gates of opportunity.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Conflicting Harmonies
Two men, complete and total strangers, are thrown onto an island the size of an ice skating rink. They are marooned without shelter or friends, and separated from the rest of humanity.
Each person has one different possession. The first holds a jug of fresh water, full to the brim. The other carries a container of raisins, and it too is filled to the maximum.
No communication between the two is present. They both isolate themselves to different sides of the island, taking their belongings with them. And when the time to feed approaches, everyone is satisfied. The first man indulges himself in the refreshing fluid he is given, the second chews thoughtfully on the tender fruits he owns.
Right now, the two men are in harmony, because their demands have been dealt with, their requirements fulfilled.
But hours later, their demands grow. The first man finds his stomach grumbling uncontrollably; the second finds himself feverish with thirst, and his scorching dry throat becomes a living nightmare.
Simultaneously, they head for one another. A congregation takes place in the center of the island. By now both men are already down to half of their supplies.
If one was aggressive, he would fight for total control of all possessions. Conflict would then eradicate their ephemeral harmony.
But if they sought past the need of greed, a much more civilized approach would take place. Their individual harmonies would unite into a common one, and it could be shared.
Now let us make a couple of changes. The crisis takes a turn. The men are willing to share. Sounds good enough…until I tell you that the mission statement has also changed. They will need to take control of both food and water. Although the intention to remain in harmony sounds far more practical, survival would be much easier when you don’t need to think the needs of another. Thus, this new condition would serve as a better type of harmony.
Reality is a reflection of this constantly changing situation. It may not always happen between two people, or two parties, or two countries, but different sides are always involved. And the mission statement is a fluctuating entity. Your boss, parents, best friends…but mostly ourselves, are responsible for this shift, but we do not necessarily acknowledge it.
And why do these change so much? Because our requirements are very much protean and inconsistent. It is natural proclivity for these mission statements to change, and we must fulfill them. To gain what, you might ask? That very sense of harmony and comfort zone we all want to seek refuge in. But when our ideas of this inner peace clash with another, we get conflict.
The two men in my story back there? A simple expression of today’s society. Even in such a straightforward scenario, conflict reigns unchallenged. And it isn’t even close to the brutal complexity of our modern world. Differences with individual possessions, just like the divide of food and water between the two men, is what harvests conflict, and its also the basis from which international tensions arise today. Meanwhile, the instinct and intention for survival only heats up the pressure, because anyone in the dilemma of making a life-dependent choice will only pursue their needs, not the ones of others.
It’s quite a subtle side to life’s big picture. We all realize that respect and acceptance of other’s feelings and thoughts is a nice thing, but at the expense of losing our own desires, and we totally scrap the idea. Give breathing room to someone else’s idea of a harmony, and it usually means hampering your own. What’s the point?
Well, we know the result of conflicting with another harmony is mostly more rewarding. Look around us, cars, industry, technology, are all giving us huge leaps in speed and efficiency, and the cost is merely conflict with Nature’s harmony. The Earth doesn’t enjoy having an atmosphere full of greenhouse gases and pollutants, but we’ve decided that things will be better that way…at least for materialism.
What can we do? Let’s return to the earlier analogy with the two men. Whatever the mission statement is, both harmonies always have a way of living in balance. There is never a situation where everyone is totally satisfied…that much is undeniable. Keep some…or lose all? Compromise and live on…or remain obstinate and unprogressive? One thing for certain…a situation with one single harmony is impossible. A congregation of many can be achieved – just like that congregation that took place in the center of the island with the two men. Our interpretations of an inner peace must adapt to those around us. We have to become more open to change and alteration, and only then can we truly connect with one another as a society. But until then, we still have much to learn…and until then, we still have to avoid the damage that conflicting harmonies can impose.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Calculate this
They can come in all shapes and sizes. Some can be mistaken as credit cards. Others are as big as typewriters or computers. Usually the ones we use amidst our day-to-day routines can fit firmly in an outstretched palm.
Calculators. Devices to speed up, or possibly squelch out altogether the duration between sums and number crunching. Calculators weren't always the name given to a machine. They denote any person who did numeric work using anything that wasn't totally mental - and by this it refers to a process done in the head, not a procedure completely senseless. This could include options from pen and paper to an abacus.
But wait, there's something missing. In the modern world today, or to be more specific, in educational systems taught by Western techniques, almost every student is equipped with such aids. There is less attention focused on the manual, mental mathematic solutions to problems. All there is to it nowadays is: "Press this button, then follow it with your command, and hit the ENTER key to get your answer."
Kids have gotten into the habit of seeing calculators as completely foolproof methods of producing answers. Suddenly there's no intermediate stage in their thinking. Suddenly the logical pathways they followed in order to reach conclusions have disappeared. By replacing these crucial, but otherwise time-consuming stages, using our calculators - these tools of "aid" designed to help us big time - is killing our ability to be more successful in life.
Of course, it takes nearly a degree to figure out how some of the calculators work these days. Some graphical calculators have manuals thick enough to drown people, and I thought these tools were supposed to save us time. We've now got ways to roll with the best of them: every time you reach for the calculator, it's a pretty big gamble. Will we obtain our answers quicker than working them out manually? Or will we wind up losing our minds and sense of direction in the multifarious keys, and the impressive liquid crystal numeric monitor?
True, sometimes there are mathematical concepts we just can't grasp normally unless the numbers are written out before us. Like Pi, for example, the nasty little constant that decides every circle we come across. The endless decimals of recurring fractions. We can't successfully visualize these unless something regarded with awe and august - our trusty mechanical buddies - produces the figures for us.
Sounds pretty good right? But they can also play tricks on us. Some calculators, without correct use of brackets, can completely disorientate negative numbers, and produce a chain of bad habits and incorrect answers for students. The calculator can become more of a crutch than a tool, and amidst exams or any lifetime situation, people will be double-checking even the most trivial sums and calculations, for they have no experience to handle them otherwise.
This is the huge compensation required to make up for speed and efficiency. It is a big number. A tortuous sum. One no calculator - human or mechanical - will ever be able to solve.
Calculators. Devices to speed up, or possibly squelch out altogether the duration between sums and number crunching. Calculators weren't always the name given to a machine. They denote any person who did numeric work using anything that wasn't totally mental - and by this it refers to a process done in the head, not a procedure completely senseless. This could include options from pen and paper to an abacus.
But wait, there's something missing. In the modern world today, or to be more specific, in educational systems taught by Western techniques, almost every student is equipped with such aids. There is less attention focused on the manual, mental mathematic solutions to problems. All there is to it nowadays is: "Press this button, then follow it with your command, and hit the ENTER key to get your answer."
Kids have gotten into the habit of seeing calculators as completely foolproof methods of producing answers. Suddenly there's no intermediate stage in their thinking. Suddenly the logical pathways they followed in order to reach conclusions have disappeared. By replacing these crucial, but otherwise time-consuming stages, using our calculators - these tools of "aid" designed to help us big time - is killing our ability to be more successful in life.
Of course, it takes nearly a degree to figure out how some of the calculators work these days. Some graphical calculators have manuals thick enough to drown people, and I thought these tools were supposed to save us time. We've now got ways to roll with the best of them: every time you reach for the calculator, it's a pretty big gamble. Will we obtain our answers quicker than working them out manually? Or will we wind up losing our minds and sense of direction in the multifarious keys, and the impressive liquid crystal numeric monitor?
True, sometimes there are mathematical concepts we just can't grasp normally unless the numbers are written out before us. Like Pi, for example, the nasty little constant that decides every circle we come across. The endless decimals of recurring fractions. We can't successfully visualize these unless something regarded with awe and august - our trusty mechanical buddies - produces the figures for us.
Sounds pretty good right? But they can also play tricks on us. Some calculators, without correct use of brackets, can completely disorientate negative numbers, and produce a chain of bad habits and incorrect answers for students. The calculator can become more of a crutch than a tool, and amidst exams or any lifetime situation, people will be double-checking even the most trivial sums and calculations, for they have no experience to handle them otherwise.
This is the huge compensation required to make up for speed and efficiency. It is a big number. A tortuous sum. One no calculator - human or mechanical - will ever be able to solve.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Chinese VS International: On The Chessboard
“In Chinese Chess the knight, sometimes called the “Mă” in Mandarin, can be obstructed by other pieces in its pathway. But this is different with International Chess – the knight is always free to move.”
I never failed to remember those words my dad told me when I was eight. That one fact made me look out of completely new eyes when I compared the two remarkably similar games of chess together. The one-on-one competition to outsmart your opponent was taken on a completely new level: the knight could not be obstructed, taking out what my young mind thought was nothing but a flaw in the game. After learning the Chinese Chess rules for a few short months, I never even had the chance to use them in my rush to gain what I thought International Chess would promise – a more entertaining game.
But now as a sixteen year old, when I’ve thoroughly learnt the basic rules and strategies for both games, I look back at them with neutral eyes. As an American born Chinese, I was determined to find the pros and cons for each game, even though I enjoyed playing both. And asked myself the following questions: what were the fundamental principles and properties that made such a simple but fascinating game? Did it have something to do with the rules? Yes, it did…
Each piece on the board is given a specific route of movement and attack. Players will need to think hard about how to combine a variety of different tactics to accomplish the simple objective: a checkmate. But what is the one thing that makes a game fun to play? A challenge. Balancing out the difficulties of a game is crucial – making it impossible to win will throw people off, but making it far too simple is a game not worth playing.
And it made me think that International Chess had somewhat chosen the latter road. Even though each player had identical chess pieces and quantities, it was their abilities that made things far too simple when in comparison with Chinese Chess. Under skilled hands, and victory would come all too quickly. Played by an amateur, and things would get too frustrating. Everything is focused on the superpower of the board: the Queen. Its crucial status reflected the all-too destructive demeanor – such a powerful piece would make it a substitute target besides the King. And the Knight isn’t too far behind: if it cannot be obstructed like in Chinese Chess, then defense and attack would be far too simple. The King is free to roam in all squares of the chessboard. Pawns can be redeemed for additional Queens once they reach the opponent’s starting side. Such rules would give both players advantages, but it acted like a two-way sword: such power could always go against you. Where had the challenge for this game gone to?
Chinese Chess, on the other hand, seemed so much more balanced in many different ways. While not straying too far along the scale of impossibility, it enhances difficulty levels using several methods. The King is not allowed to leave the “fortress”, and neither can its guards. The Elephant/Minister cannot cross the river – restricting their movement and limiting their usefulness. Knights can be obstructed with any piece, and if it comes to a standoff between one horse and a hindered one, the latter cannot reciprocate the attack because of the lack of mobility. Kings can never directly come face-to-face along the length of the chessboard, opening many doors that lead to colorful checkmates. There is no ultimate piece of the game – it is more balanced by giving the two rooks the title of being the most powerful pieces.
Why such a big difference? Both games focus on the use of strategy and tactics, and both players are given the exact same positions at the start of the game. Maybe one would think it all lies within the rules…but how did such a difference in the rules come by?
It made me think the answer lay inside the two dissimilar cultures – we’ve all heard the phrase ‘when East meets West.’ And in a way, it did make sense if we compared it to the corresponding traditions. Back in the olden times, customary Chinese people treated more than just family members as ‘brothers.’ Neighbors, friends, even colleagues, were all given the same attention and closeness. But in Western society, did this exist to such a degree? Maybe there were exceptions, but everyone had more of an independent attitude towards living, perhaps wanting to achieve more without synergy.
Could the game be somehow reflecting these two contrasting cultures? Perhaps…in Chinese Chess, everything is more balanced when determining the abilities of pieces. There is no ultimate power on the board – everything needs to fully support each other in order to win. International Chess has the same concept under its name, but only after the Queen has been removed. Otherwise, players tend to use their most powerful piece to do their bidding; to go independently rather than wait for the majority of their forces to get into position, while the Chinese concentrate more intently on the support of each and every piece to see victory.
Just like men in Eastern society waiting to give aid to their brothers when they need it.
I never failed to remember those words my dad told me when I was eight. That one fact made me look out of completely new eyes when I compared the two remarkably similar games of chess together. The one-on-one competition to outsmart your opponent was taken on a completely new level: the knight could not be obstructed, taking out what my young mind thought was nothing but a flaw in the game. After learning the Chinese Chess rules for a few short months, I never even had the chance to use them in my rush to gain what I thought International Chess would promise – a more entertaining game.
But now as a sixteen year old, when I’ve thoroughly learnt the basic rules and strategies for both games, I look back at them with neutral eyes. As an American born Chinese, I was determined to find the pros and cons for each game, even though I enjoyed playing both. And asked myself the following questions: what were the fundamental principles and properties that made such a simple but fascinating game? Did it have something to do with the rules? Yes, it did…
Each piece on the board is given a specific route of movement and attack. Players will need to think hard about how to combine a variety of different tactics to accomplish the simple objective: a checkmate. But what is the one thing that makes a game fun to play? A challenge. Balancing out the difficulties of a game is crucial – making it impossible to win will throw people off, but making it far too simple is a game not worth playing.
And it made me think that International Chess had somewhat chosen the latter road. Even though each player had identical chess pieces and quantities, it was their abilities that made things far too simple when in comparison with Chinese Chess. Under skilled hands, and victory would come all too quickly. Played by an amateur, and things would get too frustrating. Everything is focused on the superpower of the board: the Queen. Its crucial status reflected the all-too destructive demeanor – such a powerful piece would make it a substitute target besides the King. And the Knight isn’t too far behind: if it cannot be obstructed like in Chinese Chess, then defense and attack would be far too simple. The King is free to roam in all squares of the chessboard. Pawns can be redeemed for additional Queens once they reach the opponent’s starting side. Such rules would give both players advantages, but it acted like a two-way sword: such power could always go against you. Where had the challenge for this game gone to?
Chinese Chess, on the other hand, seemed so much more balanced in many different ways. While not straying too far along the scale of impossibility, it enhances difficulty levels using several methods. The King is not allowed to leave the “fortress”, and neither can its guards. The Elephant/Minister cannot cross the river – restricting their movement and limiting their usefulness. Knights can be obstructed with any piece, and if it comes to a standoff between one horse and a hindered one, the latter cannot reciprocate the attack because of the lack of mobility. Kings can never directly come face-to-face along the length of the chessboard, opening many doors that lead to colorful checkmates. There is no ultimate piece of the game – it is more balanced by giving the two rooks the title of being the most powerful pieces.
Why such a big difference? Both games focus on the use of strategy and tactics, and both players are given the exact same positions at the start of the game. Maybe one would think it all lies within the rules…but how did such a difference in the rules come by?
It made me think the answer lay inside the two dissimilar cultures – we’ve all heard the phrase ‘when East meets West.’ And in a way, it did make sense if we compared it to the corresponding traditions. Back in the olden times, customary Chinese people treated more than just family members as ‘brothers.’ Neighbors, friends, even colleagues, were all given the same attention and closeness. But in Western society, did this exist to such a degree? Maybe there were exceptions, but everyone had more of an independent attitude towards living, perhaps wanting to achieve more without synergy.
Could the game be somehow reflecting these two contrasting cultures? Perhaps…in Chinese Chess, everything is more balanced when determining the abilities of pieces. There is no ultimate power on the board – everything needs to fully support each other in order to win. International Chess has the same concept under its name, but only after the Queen has been removed. Otherwise, players tend to use their most powerful piece to do their bidding; to go independently rather than wait for the majority of their forces to get into position, while the Chinese concentrate more intently on the support of each and every piece to see victory.
Just like men in Eastern society waiting to give aid to their brothers when they need it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
