Alan Moore's work

I am just read Alan Moore's novel, Voice of The Fire. This made me realise that I ought to recognise his work on this blog. As a writer, he has given me lots of inspiration.

Voice of the Fire

A highly experimental novel, Moore takes pretty much every risk he could and pretty much pulls it off. Every chapter takes place in a different period of time in the same location: Moore's home town. Themes and events repeat themselves, linked through history.
The first chapter presents an early form of man where language has not truly developed. Moore recreates the English language to be entirely present, with the most basic grammar. Very cleverly done.
The last chapter is of a writer trying to finish his book - presumably Moore himself. It is again in the present tense - a literary recurrence that reflects the other recurrences throughout the novel.

Watchmen

This is to me clearly the greatest comic book of all time (Maus as a second place, closely followed by V for Vendetta [Alan Moore] and The Dark Knight Returns). If you are going to start reading any comic book, it should be this.
Interesting presentation of the greater good and utilitarianism calculation on a massive scale. Makes you question consequentialist ethics. I certainly would never follow through with Ozymandias' plan, despite being something of a utilitarian. However, with it done, I would do what Nite Owl does, not Rorschach, and let the deception continue.
Despite this, Rorschach is one of the greatest characters ever.

V for Vendetta

A brilliant book opposing tyranny. An almost Orwellian dystopian novel with a revolutionary vigilante superhero planted into it. What an awesome concept. And brilliantly pulled off.
The figure of V has become a revolutionary figure, particularly his mask, which has been used by Anonymous. Shows what an impact these things can have.
There's a fantastic speech in the film, but I can't remember whether it is in the book. V first meets Evey and delivers a monologue that describes himself using 'v' alliteration ("Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose"). It's a wonderful exploration of the English language that I learnt off by heart. I do not know, however, whether I can attribute it to Alan Moore.
"Ideas are bulletbroof"

I am not such a fan of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen as his other works.

Opinion on films
Personally, I think the films of Moore's works are pretty good. V for Vendetta and Watchmen are both great films. However, they do not rival the original comics, which justifies Alan Moore's attitude of immense dislike for the film adaptations of his work. I would take a more light-hearted approach, but I respect Moore  greatly.

Fahrenheit 451

This short dystopian novel by Ray Bradbury is an extremely well written and enjoyable read. A rather unsubtle warning about the dangerous of burning books. A society is depicted where all citizens are passive consumers of rubbish TV with meaningless lives. Firemen have a different role of causing fires, burning down homes that may have books in them. The political messages are incredibly blunt and unambiguous, but that is acceptable with a topic as unambiguous as the morality of book burning.

Essentially, as with a scary amount of dystopian fiction, it's now happening. Sure, we don't burn books, but we are reading fewer and fewer and in their place are consuming mindless television. This is an important book.

Another interpretation of the book is the role of mass media stultifying society and human relationships. In the late 1950s, Bradbury commented:
"In writing the short novel Fahrenheit 451 I thought I was describing a world that might evolve in four or five decades. But only a few weeks ago, in Beverly Hills one night, a husband and wife passed me, walking their dog. I stood staring after them, absolutely stunned. The woman held in one hand a small cigarette-package-sized radio, its antenna quivering. From this sprang tiny copper wires which ended in a dainty cone plugged into her right ear. There she was, oblivious to man and dog, listening to far winds and whispers and soap-opera cries, sleep-walking, helped up and down curbs by a husband who might just as well not have been there. This was not fiction."

There is a fantastic section where Beatty explains how society came to be the way it is where anything that opposes the status quo is destroyed. It was utterly gripping. I have rarely been enthralled by a book as much as that.
Interestingly, however, the book then reaches the end of Section 1 and I was rather unmotivated to continue reading and read something else, later returning to it and being once again drawn into the world. This shows the importance of cliffhangers.

-----


"Do you ever read any of the books you burn?"
He laughed. "That's against the law!"
"Oh. Of course."


"We must all be alike. Not everyone born free and equal, as the Constitution says, but everyone made equal. Each man the image of every other; then all are happy, for there are no mountains to make them cower, to judge themselves against."


"We have everything we need to be happy, but we aren't happy. Something's missing. I looked around. The only thing I positively knew was gone was the books I'd burned in ten or twelve years. So I thought books might help."

Fight Club

I am in love with both the novel by Chuck Palahnuik and the film adaptation of the same name.

Having seen the film many times, considering it one of my favourite films, I was compelled to read the novel. After researching the author, I was slightly put off by the dark nature of some of his other work. Some of his short stories are particularly gruesome. However, I still felt I wanted to read fight Club and I am very glad that I did. A fairly brief novel, that is a joy to read. I say 'joy', even though it is not particularly joyous. Masterfully written, narratively engaging and extremely clever.

It uses a narrative technique of jumping around through time, often telling two or even three parts of the sotry at once. There are lots of very short sentence in paragraphs of their own. It is punchy and has a very unique writing style. And yet, it is incredibly easy to read. I love writing when it is slightly experimental or modernist, but I also like to be able to just read and enjoy. Palahnuik achieves both expertly.

One slight curiosity I have with it is that the author does not seem to be in favour of any character in a moral way. It is unclear as to whether we should see Project Mayhem as an entirely detestable enterprise or as something to aspire to, if it were not to get out of hand. Tyler is so much more than the nameless protagonist, yet his morals seem askew. This is not a failing on the author's part to make his views clear, but merely something I dislike in a novel. Palahnuik tells a story of a controversial side to human nature without really providing a moral. He just makes you think. Certainly, sentiments about equality and making something of your life seem to be moral. The fight club seems positively therapeutic. However, Project Mayhem seems absurd and horrible in its deadly quest for justice. Part of me wants it to be either a novel in opposition to violence, or revolutionary book about fighting elitism. However, another part of me realises that either of those would appeal to me as much as the novel in its true form does. Any change would be detrimental.

As for the twist at the end, I loved it when I saw the film, and wish I could go through the experience of discovering the fantastic truth again. When reading the novel, I was able to do the 'second reading' necessary to pick up on the clues first time round, because I already knew the twist. It is brilliantly done.

Furthermore, I was pleasantly surprised to find out how true to the novel the film was. There were obviously some tweaks but it was definitely a direct film adaptation rather than a similar concept with entirely different plot-lines and characters.

Overall, its pure genius.

-------

"I know this because Tyler knows it."


"I want you to hit me as hard as you can."

"Welcome to Fight Club. The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule of Fight Club is: you DO NOT talk about Fight Club! Third rule of Fight Club: if someone yells “stop!”, goes limp, or taps out, the fight is over. Fourth rule: only two guys to a fight. Fifth rule: one fight at a time, fellas. Sixth rule: the fights are bare knuckle. No shirt, no shoes, no weapons. Seventh rule: fights will go on as long as they have to. And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight." - Film

Christopher Hitchens.

I discovered Christopher Hitchens about 2 months before his unfortunate death. He made such an impression that I was shocked when I heard he died. He has become someone I aspire to.

I was encouraged to read his autobiography 'Hitch-22'. Such an interesting life. It's a book filled with humour, irony, nostalgia and sophistication. It is both inspiring and disheartening to see how active he was: travelling across the world to the most dangerous parts of the world at a young age. He said that to be a writer you need to feel like you have to write, not just wanting to. Not sure about that.

Now, I don't agree with all his views. I am an atheist, but think he is possibly too aggressive in his approach. He can sometimes cross the line. I find this entertaining to watch or read and respect him for it, but probably wouldn't myself. Furthermore, I am unsure on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which he is in favour of. I used to think we should get out as fast as possible, but now I am less certain. Generally, I am interested in politics greatly but find it harder to reach conclusions since. Too much of an academic? Not reading into it enough?Either way, Hitchens has inspired me to find out more than I did.

Hitchens decided to try the experience of being water-boarded. I greatly admire his courage for this. He realised he couldn't progress the debate further without experiencing it himself. He concluded that it is a form of torture. Interestingly, he said that it was a misconception to say that it simulates drowning: it drowns you in slow motion.

Ultimately, what appeals is his atheism. I haven't got round to reading 'god Is Not Great' yet, but I'm aware of most of his views having seen endless lectures, blogs and debates etc. He described himself as an anti-theist. Not only did he think it is not true, but he thought it would be bad if it was. Christianity is the ultimate giving up of our personal freedom to a celestial dictatorship, to a God that commands us to love him. He "creates us sick and commands us to be well". Personally, I don't take such a harsh view, because if the Christian God exists, then He is good and and everything He does is good. Still, I greatly admire the strength of Hitchens' argument.

Hitch.

Catch 22

This book had potential to become one of my favourite novels of all time. It is hilariously written and very clever. However, I'm going to be honest and say that for such a long novel, too little happens. I can cope with length sometimes, if it is full of events and is engaging. Catch-22 on the other hand, has moments that are really gripping but too long sections where nothing happens. For a good section of it I was skimming.

That isn't to say that I don't realise it is totally genius and am glad I have read it, but I wanted more. Or less. Yes, that's it. I wanted all the good stuff without the waffle. So, it was good, but I wanted less of it. Sounds like something someone in Catch-22 would say.

Although, by the end, it really picks up the pace. Once some plot actually starts it became really engaging and my pace of reading multiplied rapidly. I really enjoyed the ending, absolutely fantastic.

---

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

"Of course you're dying. We're all dying. Where the devil else do you think you're heading?"

Philosophy - My view on Religion

Is religion true?

No. Well, almost certainly not. There is a small possibility that there is something beyond this life and this reality, but I don't think it is accurate to any of our religions today, let alone accurate to a certain book or books written down by humans. This is statistically unlikely for a start. Asserting a fundamental belief in a religion is goes against all odds in the hope that you're particular society happened to have chosen the one particular God that exists.

Furthermore, there is no good evidence to suggest any alternate reality at all. There are a few arguments for the existence of god but they are all flawed in my opinion. Carl Sgan said  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and yet religion says that we should take it entirely on faith. However, they then undermine that very same claim by providing what they consider to be good evidence:
 - NDEs (experiences that occur in all societies, usually true to the religion of the person. These seem to be something that can happen when the brain shuts down, but are certainly not sufficient evidence)
 - Philosophical arguments
      - Cosmological (The first cause could be The Big Bang. It does not prove any particular religion.)
      - Teleological (Evolution explains this. Life is probably not uncommon. Multi-verse?)
      - Ontological (A circular reasoning argument.)
 - Miracles*

*The idea of an intervening God that will occasionally break the laws of physics to save one life is absolutely absurd. A little bit of Hume rejects the idea of miracles as evidence.
Weigh up the chances that the laws of physics have been violated in your favour or that a mistake has been made somewhere down the line. Or exaggeration. Or deception. Or fabrication. Furthermore, every miracle in favour of one religion has to be cancelled out against a miracle in favour of another religion.
Why would God create laws of physics and create incredible suffering, if every now again he feels the need to save on child or cure one person's cancer? The idea is absurd.

I also find that the problem of evil is a very valid criticism of god, that also counters the teleological argument. You cannot look in awe at a mountain and say 'God did that', without looking at cancer in children and the horror that is virtually all of human history and explaining how an omni-benevolent, omnipotent God could create this.

If you grant truth to any aspect of religion, a thousand questions are raised that must be tackled. If you say it is all false, everything is explained.

Is religion useful?

I think it can cause much evil. Although I would not say things like "Religion is the cause of all evil" or "Religion poisons everything". Religion can provide some good in people's lives. However, I do not think that it is in any way necessary.

Religion also gives people an excuse to commit evils that would not be otherwise accepted. To get good people to do wicked things you need something akin to religion in order to give them a reason.

What annoys me is when people argue that atheism means you cannot have morals.
Ethics can come from a sort of relativism or consequentialism - these are not evil, but sensible. I don't need absolute rules such as the 10 commandments. It seems obvious to me that morality comes from some kind of consequential maximisation of happiness, virtue, well-being, flourishing etc. It does not need to come from God. Furthermore, there is no evidence that religious people are more or less moral.

The argument that the evils of the 20th Century was caused by an outbreak of secularism just does not stand. Religious people point to societies that eliminated religion and did great evils. They have the facts all wrong.
 - Hitler was raised a Catholic and says in Mein Kampf "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator... fighting for the work of the Lord".
 - Stalin trained to be a Priest and reintroduced religion when the Soviet Union went to war, setting himself up as the second coming of Christ.
The problem with these dictatorships is that they turned political ideologies into man-made religions. (Are the words "man-made" necessary before the word "religion". They surely go hand-in-hand). They gave themselves and their ideologies a God-like status. They often removed orthodox religion because it stood in the way of setting themselves up as God. But, we can see that when they wanted to, they were not afraid to use religion as a weapon. What better way to make someone behave immorally, than if they believe God is on their side?


This has been a general religion summary. My own unique ideas will come in later posts.

Philosophy - Nothing is true? Or is mankind stupid?

first philosophical blog post. And it starts with an intellectual crisis.

The human race has a remarkable ability to be wrong. This is a recent realisation I had which sent me through a fascinating mental journey, that is unfinished and took me into areas of thought I had never entered before.)

It is extraordinary how often mankind is wrong. This mainly originates from my study of philosophy, where I have not found a single philosopher who cannot be criticised or disputed in any way. It is also true of many other subjects: we have had many scientific assumptions that have been proven false, as well as mathematical ones; literature is so subjective that there are no definite rights and wrongs at all.

My instinct was that mankind is just more stupid than we realise, but I see so much intelligence and genius, and didn't think that could be right. Therefore, I began to consider various post-modernist ideas that all knowledge is subjective and unique to the individual. What if there were no truths, and everybody had their own world in their head where what they thought was true? Somebody recently said to me that they believed that your afterlife is dependent on your beliefs. i.e. The atheist is annihilated whilst the Christian goes to heaven or hell depending on their morality. Hardly fair!

Of course, I immediately rejected this for the reasons I am an atheist rather than a post-modernist in the first place. A world with no objective truths makes absolutely no sense at all. It couldn't work, unless you think that all reality is a mental construct. And if that's the case, how do you account for what we see a mental thought? Are there degrees of mental construction? I'm not one to follow Okham's Razor, but this idea seems ludicrous.

I eventually realised what I knew all along. Mankind does not know everything, but it wants to know everything, and so it asserts certain things as truth, even though they are only theories. We are getting closer and closer to the truth in terms of how our universe works, what is moral etc. We just haven't got there yet. Or maybe we are all just a bit stupid.


[Edit]
A book I'm reading (Everything is Obvious) brought to light the distinction between common sense and reason. The book was talking more generally about the unreliability of common sense but it reminded me of this post. Perhaps many people use common sense, and the job of the philosopher and seeker of truth is to use reason to work out which common sensical truths are actually true. I have to examine views that may seem obvious to me or others. I believe that I have done this with some questions such as religion and ethics but must continue to re-evaluate and not rely on common sense, which is perhaps what many are doing.