Currently Reading: The Hollow People, by Brian Keaney. Young adult fantasy/science fiction. 8/101.
Son of a Witch, by Gregory Maguire. Adult fiction. 9/10.
Spud, by John van de Ruit. Young Adult fiction. 7/10.
Estoy: Getting tired of school and the weather…
Okay. I am back. After a fantastic month-long2 hiatus, which I do apologize for. I wish I had a really good excuse for such a long break, but I don't. Yes, I'm in track now, but I still do have free time. Just not as much. So I haven't posted partly because I'm lazy. Sorry. I'll try to be more faithful about posting from now on.
"Danger is the price of freedom, and without the possibility of doing evil, you can never do good."
Excerpted from The Hollow People3
I found this quote to be absolutely beautiful and so, so true. It's sort of how radicalism seems to me: in order to make a big change in society, you're going to have to act differently and break a few social norms. I know, that's sort of the meaning of radicalism, isn't it? Ah well, I thought it was deep.
I think, though, that there are a lot of people who don't appreciate things like this. Perhaps that's the reason for society being the way it is today. People don't question things enough and push the social boundaries. That's why change is so slow to come.
I'm in no way saying that this quote excuses the behavior of some of the more radical people out there, like Hitler, for example. I believe he took change a bit too far. On the other hand, though, is it right for us to blindly call him evil? Yes, he did some bad things. A lot of them, in fact. And on the badness scale4, they rated pretty high. But how do you define evil5? Is someone evil because they've done something bad, or because they've sinned, as religion puts it? Everyone is a sinner, if you choose to see life that way. Does that mean that people are inherently evil? I can't say that we are. I still believe in humankind too much to say that.
But what about people like Hitler, who killed masses of people "for the greater good?" As I said before, perhaps he is not actually evil. I mean, he may have been seriously deluded, but can we call him evil? It's an interesting question.
"For the greater good…" That reminds me of Harry Potter. So let's take a moment to dissect the much-used literary theme of good vs. evil, especially as it pertains to those books6. As Rita Skeeter uncovered in Deathly Hallows, Dumbledore was, for a time at least, a friend of Grindelwald. The two had planned to rule the Muggles "for the greater good." I'm not sure if this was considering the good of the Muggles or themselves, but the question is: does this feeling of superiority and actions that might follow because of it make the pair evil? I think we can all agree that Dumbledore wasn't evil7, but what about Grindelwald? And for that matter, what about Voldemort? Both killed Muggles and were regarded by many in terror8. This can clearly be established as a "bad thing." But, were the two evil? Even I'm not sure how to answer this. Maybe evil is simply a concept that is different for each person and therefore can never be widely defined. Perhaps evil is not marked by bad deeds done, but instead by when you lose touch with your heart and soul through greed. Or it could be that Gregory Maguire gets the last laugh—
"It's the ones who think they're better than everyone else that you have to watch out for."
Excerpted from Wicked.
If you ask me, that could apply to Hitler, Grindelwald, and Voldemort. And even those "popular" girls at your school.
Either way, I hope I gave you some brain food for the day and inspired you to challenge other people's ideas. It's about as radical as I have the courage to get right now. Until next time…
xxx
Caryn
1 I have changed my system of book ratings to be out of ten, in case you actually noticed and were wondering about that. Not that you were. They were out of five before, but I don't feel that allowed for as much depth.
2 Or thereabouts. I didn't keep track, exactly.
3 Two points if you noted that I'm reading this right now.
4 Of my invention, that is.
5 I've been questioning the concept of evil a lot since I read Wicked.
6 Because who doesn't love discussing Harry Potter and relating it to everything in life?
7 If you think he was, tell me; that'll make for an interesting discussion.
8 Or "Teror," if you're extremely special like that. Two points to those of you who get it.
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
1 comment:
This is an older post- but I love it!
I love Wicked, so this is automatically amazing.
I'll quote Wicked too.
"The real thing about evil," said the Witch at the doorway, "isn't any of what you said. You figure out one side of it-the human side, say- and the eternal side goes into shadow. Or vice versa. It's like the old saw: What does a dragon in its shell look like? Well no one can ever tell, for as soon as you break the shell to see, the dragon is no longer in its shell. The real disaster of this inquiry is that it is the nature of evil to be secret" (Pages 371-372).
That was a long quote.
Once evil is understood it can no longer be considered evil, if we can sympathize and empathize with the people who have done horrible crimes we cannot think of them as evil. The more that humanity understands the more things are just considered "bad" as opposed to "evil".
Great post. :D I loved it.
Post a Comment