Essays and Other Pieces of Literature

[Laharls_Wrath]

eh, I don't think it can hurt to post it

[MagmarFire]

It probably would if one of them is over 40,000 words in length. XD

[Chromeo]

Dude, get me a link up in here.

[MagmarFire]

www.fanfiction.net/u/1353788/

Take your pick.

[Chromeo]

Y... you think MGA quotes are funny too? >_>

[Mastery]

MGJ quotes are funnier.

[Laharls_Wrath]

that reminds me www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnXuGzkkwxE&feature=PlayList&p=813614950E88322E&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=28

[MagmarFire]

May 12, 2010 18:25:23 GMT -5 Chromeo said:

Y... you think MGA quotes are funny too? >_>

DAMN RIGHT, *******, MMM-MMM!!

[Tails82]

The Jehovah’s Witnesses, a fairly modern religious group, has had an impact on

American society and the classroom despite their recent formation less than two centuries ago.

The religious group was criticized for placing its emphasis on a religious education and an

evangelical mission over the pursuit of a higher education. Their opposition to military service,

voting in elections, and the mandatory salute to the flag in school were not received well by the

general public, especially during wartime. Their efforts to push back against religious

persecution led them to pursue several court cases in the 1930s and 1940s, notably over their

claim that they had the right to sit out and not participate in the Pledge of Allegiance. The early

cases regarding civil rights brought forth by the Jehovah’s Witnesses raised important questions

in the 20th century, as people wondered what degree of religious expression should be allowed in

a public classroom.

The group that came to be known as the Jehovah’s witnesses was started as a Bible study

group in the early 1870s by Charles Russell, a former Presbyterian. The society soon began to

grow, expanding by 1880 into around thirty congregations spread out across seven states.

Branches of the society opened in England, Germany, Australia, and other countries. In 1879

Russell became the first president of the Watchtower Society, which was responsible for

publishing periodicals about the group’s beliefs. As the group expanded, these publications were

translated into other languages, in order to further educate and spread the faith to those in foreign

countries. The Society predicted that Armageddon would occur in the year 1914, and the onset of

World War I during that time strengthened this belief. However, this did not occur and the group

faced problems such as dissent among its members, especially after the death of Russell in 1916.

Joseph Rutherford became the second president of the Watchtower Society, and during this time

the group went through a period of schisms.

Meanwhile, the movement faced persecution in several countries due to their opposition

to war and their refusal to salute their country’s flag. In Canada, Watchtower publications were

outlawed because, according to Hoekema (1963), “it was alleged that they contained seditious

and anti-war sentiments” (p. 229). In the United States, members of the Society were harassed

and arrested for their beliefs. Rutherford and seven other leaders of the movement were arrested

in 1918. Hoekema (1963) stated that the members were charged with “conspiring to cause

insubordination and refusal of duty in the United States military and naval forces” (p. 229).

However, after the war ended in 1919 they were released when a judge ruled that they had not

received an impartial trial. The Watchtower Society began publishing again and expanded. In

1931 the society was renamed the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and under Rutherford the faith began to

become more centralized, with its headquarters in Brooklyn. The group continued to face some

discrimination in public life, notably in the classroom.

The issue of whether religious freedom could be cited in the classroom as a reason not to

participate in the Pledge of Allegiance was first brought up in the mid-1920s, involving members

of the Elijah Voice Society, a group which had separated from Russell’s. Henderson (2005)

states that, “The EVS believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible, the sinfulness of war, and,

most importantly, the authority of God over human institutions” (p. 750). Like the Jehovah’s

Witnesses, the Elijah Voice Society opposed the mandatory requirement to salute the flag, which

they saw as idol worship. While this case was decided against the Elijah Voice Society and did

not move past the local level, similar cases would later spring up involving the Jehovah’s

Witnesses.

The Pledge of Allegiance was first introduced in 1892. All students, including the

Jehovah’s Witnesses, were expected to take part in the pledge. This was an issue, however,

because this action went against the group’s beliefs. According to Peterson (2007), “The

Witnesses came to believe that the salute to the flag was a form of idolatry, which amounted to

the worship of a graven image as prohibited by the scriptures” (p. 760). Members of the church

were not allowed to run for public office, join the military, celebrate secular holidays, or salute

the flag. The actions of the Jehovah’s Witnesses were seen as suspicious and even treasonous by

some, especially after the onset of World War II. Since the Jehovah’s Witnesses would not salute

the flag or participate in the pledge, the patriotism of the group was called into question. Efforts

were made to prohibit the group from going door-to-door and students who belonged to the faith

were nevertheless required to take part in the pledge.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses dealt with the religious discrimination they faced by

challenging these policies in court. From 1938 to 1943, the Supreme Court handled over twenty

cases involving the Jehovah’s Witnesses. During this time, the Court took up a few cases that led

to important rulings on issues regarding freedom of speech in the classroom. In 1940 the

Supreme Court ruled in Minersville School District v. Gobitis that Jehovah’s Witnesses were

required to participate in the mandatory recitation of the pledge. The Court ruled in Minersville

(1940) that “Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious

toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or

restriction of religious beliefs” (p.1010). The Court explained that the flag fostered national

unity, did not discriminate against the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and was to be obeyed the same way

other laws were obeyed, regardless of religious belief.

The Court’s decision led to further problems for the Jehovah’s Witnesses when the

verdict was learned by the general public. According to Peterson (2007), “People throughout the

country mistakenly believed that the Supreme Court had said that the Jehovah’s Witnesses were

traitors” (p. 762). Not only were Jehovah’s Witnesses expelled from schools, but members were

also harassed and attacked by mobs in several states. These attacks prompted three of the

Supreme Court Justices who had voted in favor of the final decision to state publicly that they

had made the wrong decision in the case. Two more Justices would later change their minds, and

expressed their disapproval of the ruling as well.

In the 1942 Supreme Court case West Virginia v Barnette, the issue of a mandatory

pledge requirement reached the Court once more. West Virginia school districts were required by

state law to have all of their students salute the flag in class. A group of Jehovah’s Witnesses

brought the law to court after half a dozen students were expelled from school districts in West

Virginia over the mandate. Since most of the Supreme Court Justices now opposed the Gobitis

ruling, which the West Virginia law was citing as its authority, the Supreme Court decided to

hear the case. The Court reached a decision on June 1943, overturning the decision made in

Gobitis. The decision was based not on the right to religious freedom, but was made under the

broader definition of freedom of speech.

The position argued in Barnette made an important distinction because it not only

allowed the Jehovah’s Witnesses to decline to salute the flag on religious grounds, but also

extended the right to those who did not want to salute the flag for non-religious reasons.

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson wrote “those who begin coercive elimination of dissent

soon find themselves eliminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only

the unanimity of the graveyard” (qtd. in Peters, 2000, p. 253). The Supreme Court wanted to

make clear that the Barnette ruling was a firm reversal of the Gobitis decision reached only a few

years before.

The impact of these court rulings set an important precedent. Peterson explains, “In the

nineteenth century and well into the twentieth century, the Supreme Court was concerned

primarily with economic regulation and not civil rights…The Witness cases are important

because they made the Court think about those things in a sustained way for the first time” (p.

759). Since the Jehovah’s Witnesses took many cases to court, which involved important civil

liberties issues such as freedom of speech and religion, an important precedent was set which

influenced rulings during the Civil Rights movement decades later. The Barnette ruling set the

groundwork for later decisions that would impact civil rights later in the 20th century.

As the Jehovah’s Witnesses grew under Rutherford’s leadership, a transition took place

concerning society’s views on education. Under Russell’s guidance, higher education was seen

as unnecessary and even immoral. According to Penton (1997), “Little changed among

Jehovah’s Witnesses during Rutherford’s day. If anything he was more anti-intellectual than his

predecessor” (p. 271). In fact, Rutherford’s actions led to further a schism among members. The

Society had originally started as a means of religious education for its members, meeting in Bible

Study groups. Rutherford centralized the group and placed a different emphasis on its mission.

Hoekema (1963) states, “Whereas emphasis had previously been laid on Bible study, character

development, and the cultivation of the fruits of the Spirit, all the stress came to be laid on the

placing of literature, the making of calls, and the reporting of these calls to Watchtower

headquarters” (p. 230). Due to these changes, as many as three out of four members either left

the group or broke off and formed one of their own.

While higher education may have been de-emphasized, the Jehovah’s Witnesses began to

recognize the need for an education in training and ministry for its members. In 1943, under the

leadership of the Society’s third president Nathan Knorr, the Gilead Watchtower Bible School

was founded in Lansing, New York. Local ministry schools were also organized as an effort was

put in place to emphasize the training of members in public speaking, Biblical study and church

teaching. In the 1950s the New World Translation of the Greek Christian Scriptures, a translation

of the Bible into modern English, was published. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, with their emphasis

on the classical values set forth by the Bible, advocate an idealist viewpoint on education focused

on religious development. Members meet in Kingdom Halls, simple buildings where worship

and instruction take place.

Although pressure remains in place on members today to avoid attending institutes of

higher education, there has never been an outright ban put in place. While the Jehovah’s

Witnesses did not oppose required elementary and secondary education, higher education was

frowned upon. The Society opposed the teaching of evolution, higher Biblical criticism, and the

perceived intellectual pride that may have arose from a university education. Jehovah’s

Witnesses argued that college education was a distraction which prevented members from

spending their time on the evangelizing mission. According to Stevenson (1967), “In view of the

proximity of the Armageddon, it is obviously foolish to spend all ones time in studying for

certificates and degrees…in any case it is God’s time being wasted, time that has been dedicated

to Him and that therefore should only be spent in his service” (p. 101). University education was

seen as unnecessary for the spread of the ministry, and excess time spent seeking one’s own

interests in the secular world was not only selfish, but dangerous.

Critics of the Witnesses say that, between time spent at the Kingdom Halls and on

evangelization efforts, Jehovah’s Witnesses are isolated within their own society and are

discouraged from participation in the secular world. Stevenson (1967) explains, “There are no

fewer than five meetings which the witnesses are expected to attend each week…they are also

instructed to take their children with them” (pp. 59-60). In order to remain in good standing

among the group, members may be pressured to meet certain quotas regarding the amount of

time spent on door-to-door visits and other criteria, although formal quota requirements have

been dropped. In school, the tendency to avoid excess socializing with non-members, as well as

meetings and other church requirements, can prevent students from participating in after-school

programs. Jehovah’s Witnesses are also criticized for putting an emphasis on the ministry rather

than the pursuit of higher education.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses, in response to these criticisms, argued that the ministry and

evangelization of God’s word were more important than the individual pursuit of unneeded

further education. Higher education was tied to the pursuit of a better career and, therefore, the

pursuit for more wealth in the long run. In order to maintain their integrity, it was necessary for

members to avoid being drawn into the temptations and distractions of secular society. The

Watchtower, one of the main publications of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, explained in 1961, “In an

unrighteous society this influence is not for your good and should be resisted. The closer you

associate with such a community the more difficult it will be to combat its power to mould you

to be like it. The safe course is to keep separate from it, and this can be done although you live in

it” (qtd. in Stevenson, 1967, p. 158). Children of Jehovah’s Witnesses could go to public schools,

and it was left up to the parents to decide whether the influence of a secular society present in

public schools was too great to allow their child to attend.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses within the United States today do not have to worry about the

same level of persecution faced by the group in the early twentieth century, but the group is still

discriminated against in the United States and in other parts of the world. Issues over the

recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance remain present today. In 2009 there was an argument at a

Florida school board meeting, which concerned the district’s requirement that students stand for

the recitation of the pledge. Strauss (2010) reported that “Schools Superintendent Jim Yancey

agreed to keep the requirement -- even though the school is not legally allowed to discipline any

student for not standing” (p.1). This controversy remains an important issue because it brings up

the question of how much religious freedom should be allowed in the classroom, not only for

Jehovah’s Witnesses, but for other religious groups as well. What is the ideal balance between

freedom of religious expression and the separation of church and state in the classroom?

Persecution of the Jevovah’s Witnesses continues to take place. According to Engardio

(2009) “Russia's highest court upheld a regional ruling that outlaws Jehovah's Witnesses from

gathering to worship and sharing their beliefs with others. Dozens of the religion's publications

were banned as ‘extremist’ - including its Watchtower magazine and a children's book of Bible

stories” (p.1). Also, there remains the previously mentioned issue which Jehovah’s Witnesses

were criticized for: their de-emphasis of higher education and after-school programs. This

position may hinder some of its members from reaching their full potential.

In a class with students who belong to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, it is important to respect

the students’ decisions. Of course, it may not always be obvious at first that the students are part

of the religious group. It is important for teachers not to assume too much about their students

and jump to conclusions. A student may be trying to follow his or her religious beliefs and, while

they choose not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or take part in secular holidays such as

birthdays, they are not trying to be intentionally disrespectful. A good teacher listens to their

students, and is aware of their limitations and their strengths. A student coming from this

background may have an interesting perspective to offer, as well as certain strengths that can

benefit the class. In an effort to relate to the background of the student, teachers could bring up

issues that involved Jehovah’s Witnesses, such as noting their efforts to escape persecution and

their contributions to civil rights in a history class. Rather than focusing exclusively on the

students’ set of beliefs and what they can’t do, a teacher should remember to look at what their

students can do, and help them develop their skills and talents. It is important for a teacher who

has Jehovah’s Witnesses as students to cooperate with the students’ parents, in order for the

children to get the most out of their education while still remaining adherents to their faith.

Since their formation, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have played an influential role in

American educational policy. Their opposition towards the practice of saluting the flag sparked a

controversy in the early twentieth century, which led to important judicial decisions and shaped

educational policy. These early rulings on civil liberties in the classroom and elsewhere formed a

basis for the Civil Rights movement in the years to come. While the Jehovah’s Witnesses

maintain positions that some find controversial, it is important to remember that the religious

views of others should be respected in the classroom. Teachers should focus on the individual

student as a whole, rather than focusing on one aspect of their lives, and should work to develop

the individual’s skills. It should be remembered that freedom of religious expression is to be

respected in the classroom, and this policy should be clearly stated to other students if problems

such as bullying take place.

[Mastery]

8/10

[Laharls_Wrath]

The moral fiber of any society generally has ties, in some way shape or form, to the common religious beliefs or the spirituality of said society. Those who lack spirituality often end up suffering from a detriment of some kind. As man convolutes religion, or willingly deprives himself from it, he is both harmed by its absence and damaged by the malformed imposter attempting to claim the niche religion had previously held. This warping of religion and the harmful effects of an absence of spirituality are illustrated in the novels, The Handmaid’s Tale, by Margaret Atwood, where Offred and Gileadean society display the weakened individual and oppression brought about by a convoluted “religion,” and Frankenstein, by Mary Shelly, where Victor and the creature display what the absence of religion can turn a being into.

Through the distortion of religion, a pseudo spirituality can be formed and used to oppress and dehumanize. In The Handmaid’s Tale, Offred, the protagonist, lives in the theocratic society of Gilead, which makes use of a distorted religion to bring about oppression. The Judeo-Christian “religion” present in Gilead is stripped of all personal and emotional interaction. For example, rather than pray one would call “Soul Scrolls” and have prayers printed out. Soul Scrolls is not only an integral part of this twisted “religion;” it is a profiting and flourishing business. Offred describes Soul Scrolls in this manner:
“The window of Soul Scrolls is shatterproof. Behind it are printout machines, row on row of them; these machines are known as Holy Rollers, but only among us, it’s a disrespectful nickname. What the machines print is prayers, roll upon roll, prayers going out endlessly. They’re ordered by Compuphone, I’ve heard the Commander’s Wife doing it. Ordering prayers from Soul Scrolls is supposed to be a sign of piety and faithfulness to the regime, so of course the Commanders’ Wives do it a lot. It helps their husbands’ careers” (Atwood 167).
By removing the emotion from prayer, and making it a purely political activity, the “religion,” which the society is built around, becomes impersonal business. This makes it easy to dehumanize others, as sympathy for one’s fellow man is lost. The dehumanization of the handmaids then occurs, without any guilt felt by others. Offred even refers to herself in such a way before the ceremony, stating “I wait. I compose myself. My self is a thing I must now compose, as one composes a speech. What I must present is a made thing, not something born” (Atwood, 66). Offred has taken on the role that the corrupted “religion” of Gilead has wanted her to, that of something that is no longer human. This lack of humanity and emotion shows the “religion” of Gilead has been distorted until it is far from anything resembling true spirituality.

Through the use of previous spiritual and well renowned texts, a detrimental and distorted “religion” can spread far more rapidly and easily. In The Handmaid’s Tale the “Bible” is used to spread and intertwine Gileadean ideals with daily life. Many quotations from the Bible or other religious texts are misinterpreted, which can be used as a great force for motivation, as with modern day religious extremists. The “Bible,” which is deeply altered from its original text, is also read daily by the Commander to help embed the expectations Gilead has into the members of its society, with similar or identical readings each and every day, as illustrated during the scene where the reader is first exposed to the Commander’s reading of the “Bible”: “The Commander, as if reluctantly, begins to read. He isn’t very good at it. Maybe he’s merely bored. It’s the usual story, the usual stories. God to Adam, God to Noah. Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. Then comes the moldy old Rachel and Leah stuff we had drummed into us at the Center” (Atwood 88). Not only are certain stories in the Bible altered to spread Gilead’s ideals of oppression, the Beatitudes are altered as well. “Blessed be this, blessed be that. They played it from a tape, so that not even an Aunt would be guilty of the sin of reading. The voice was a man’s. Blessed be the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are the merciful. Blessed be the meek. Blessed are the silent. I knew they made that up, I knew it was wrong, and they left things out too, but there was no way of checking” (Atwood 89).
Through the warping of previously followed and believed in religious pieces, Gilead spreads its “religion” of oppression. While some claim the threat and reality within The Handmaid’s Tale comes from the real and present dangers of theocracies, in nations such as Iran (Bloom), the true danger is not due to a religion having a power; it is due to a warping of religion into a thing that must be called by another name.

Perhaps worse than the spreading of a pseudo-religion, such as that in The Handmaid’s Tale, is a complete absence of spirituality of any kind. In an attempt to fill the void that would be left in place spirituality, many obsess upon a singular purpose. This is frequently the case within the novel, Frankenstein. In Walden’s first letter, he makes it clear that he believes a purpose is what will allow him to achieve tranquility by stating “I feel my heart glow with an enthusiasm which elevates me to heaven, for nothing contributes so much to tranquillize the mind as a steady purpose — a point on which the soul may fix its intellectual eye” (Shelly). Throughout the novel he is not the only one to make this mistake. Rather than turn to and embrace a form of spirituality, Victor turns his back on it, along with the rest of the world, in favor of focusing solely on the creation of life. While obsessing upon his purpose he becomes both spiritually and physically emaciated, losing not only his health and his standing within society, but nearly his life. Victor attempts to play God with the belief that this will bring him happiness. He states, “A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs” (Shelly) however this brings him only misery. In trying to play God Victor forsakes any religion; not only for himself but for the being he created. The creature, created in a spiritual void, then travels through life filled with an uncontrollable rage, a perfect example of the horrors that can come to be without spirituality in one’s life. The creature then attempts to replace religion with a purpose, as Victor had done, however the creature’s sole purpose in life is to torment Victor, until they are both left guilt-filled and enraged “wretches.” The only way Victor receives any form of peace is through the means of “the “sublime and magnificent scenes” of the Alps,” (Brennan) as nature served as a form of spirituality for Victor prior to his obsession with the creation of life. According to Ketterer the mountains themselves could be seen as the embodiment of a powerful spirit. The state of both Victor and the creature can be seen as a warning of the potential dangers of the falling importance of religion in modern society. Frankenstein is a novel filled with repeated anguish and misery and, as Sherwin suggests, is a “house in ruin” due to “the evacuation of spiritual presence from the world.”

The absence of a true spirituality can bring about harm on many levels, especially since spirituality is directly tied with one’s ability to forgive both himself and others. In his misery, Victor states, “Some years ago, when the images which this world affords first opened upon me, when I felt the cheering warmth of summer and heard the rustling of the leaves and the warbling of the birds, and these were all to me, I should have wept to die; now it is my only consolation. Polluted by crimes and torn by the bitterest remorse, where can I find rest but in death?” (Shelley). He feels death is the only escape from the grief and guilt he seeks reconciliation from. His lack of spirituality directly results in his inability to forgive himself for past actions. Without the ability to forgive oneself or others it is impossible to move past wrongs of the past and progress. The inability to forgive also makes a return to happiness nigh impossible. The creature in Frankenstein, upon encountering Walden, states:
“I shall die, and what I now feel be no longer felt. Soon these burning miseries will be extinct. I shall ascend my funeral pile triumphantly and exult in the agony of the torturing flames. The light of that conflagration will fade away; my ashes will be swept into the sea by the winds. My spirit will sleep in peace, or if it thinks, it will not surely think thus. Farewell” (Shelley).
Unable to forgive itself for its past sins, and lacking the belief that a greater being will embrace it with forgiveness or punish it as necessary, the creatures attempts to punish itself by means of suicide. By this logic, decreasing spirituality in society can potentially lead to increased rates of suicide or self-inflicted injuries.

Being devoid of spirituality can also lead to weakened morals. This is illustrated clearly by both Victor and the creature in Frankenstein. When both of them are in a state lacking any religion whatsoever they are both consumed by hatred and a desire to inflict harm on each other, other living beings. Victor wishes for nothing but revenge, exclaiming:
“By the sacred earth on which I kneel, by the shades that wander near me, by the deep and eternal grief that I feel, I swear; and by thee, O Night, and the spirits that preside over thee, to pursue the daemon who caused this misery, until he or I shall perish in mortal conflict. For this purpose I will preserve my life; to execute this dear revenge will I again behold the sun and tread the green herbage of earth, which otherwise should vanish from my eyes forever. And I call on you, spirits of the dead, and on you, wandering ministers of vengeance, to aid and conduct me in my work. Let the cursed and hellish monster drink deep of agony; let him feel the despair that now torments me” (Shelley).
Victor shows no qualms in murdering another human-like being, despite the ethics involved. As morals decay empathy decays along with them. A decrease in empathy results in a generally less compassionate society, which means charity will be far less commonplace. With the decline charity and charitable actions more government involvement will be required to aid the poor and those in need, and the more the government becomes involved in the lives of the people the closer one gets to a dystopia such as that of Gilead. Decreased empathy might also result in increased crime rates, as guilt is a large deterrent that would no longer be present, as society becomes more apathetic towards the troubles of others. Without empathy from society or the support gained from spirituality, one will be worn down and devoid of peace, in a manner similar to Offred when she stated “Time has not stood still. It has washed over me, washed me away, as if I’m nothing more than a woman of sand, left by a careless child too near the water” (Atwood). Lacking spirituality, not only would society degrade, the members within it would weaken as people.

Abandoning religion altogether weakens both the individual and society as a whole, creating a lapse in morals and a rise in apathy, however attempting to replace spirituality with some convoluted “religion” often results in nothing but oppression. Religion plays a key factor in the delicate balance that is man and without it man cannot ease suffering nor reach his potential.



Work Cited:

Atwood, Margaret. The Handmaid’s Tale. New York: Anchor Books, a division of Random
House Inc., 1986. Print.

Bloom, Harold. "Bloom on The Handmaid's Tale." In Bloom, Harold, ed. The Handmaid's Tale
Bloom's Modern Critical Interpretations. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishing, 2001. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc. 14 Nov. 2010.

Brennan, Matthew C. "The Landscape of Grief in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein." Studies in the
Humanities 15, no. 1 (June 1989). Quoted as "The Landscape of Grief in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" in Bloom, Harold, ed. Frankenstein, Bloom's Guide. New York: Chelsea House Publishing, 2007. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts on File, Inc. 3 Nov. 2010.

Ketterer, David. "'Spirit of Life': Metaphoric Nexus." In Frankenstein's Creation: The Book, The
Monster, and Human Reality. University of Victoria, 1979. Quoted as "'Spirit of Life': Metaphoric Nexus" in Bloom, Harold, ed. Frankenstein, Bloom's Guide. New York: Chelsea House Publishing, 2007. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts on File, Inc. 14 Nov. 2010.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. 1818. New York, NY : Fine Creative Media. Inc.: Micheal J. Fine,
2003. Print.

Sherwin, Paul. "Frankenstein: Creation as Catastrophe." PMLA (1981). Quoted as "Frankenstein:
Creation as Catastrophe" in Bloom, Harold, ed. The Sublime, Bloom's Literary Themes. New York: Chelsea House Publishing, 2010. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc. 3 Nov. 2010.

[Tails82]

Modern just war theory is the product of several influential perspectives that shaped a lasting tradition, forming and refining a set of meaningful guidelines over time. Two significant influences were Cicero and St. Augustine, whose works influenced the early development of just war principles. Cicero argued that there were proper methods to initiate a war, strict obligations expected from soldiers in combat, and limits to the retribution a victorious state could pursue. St. Augustine, like other theologians and philosophers, would be greatly influenced by the works of Cicero. Reflecting some of Cicero’s earlier positions on war, Augustine developed a set of principles to indicate limited circumstances when it was acceptable for a state to enter into war. Augustine is considered the father of the just war theory. Cicero and Augustine both played an important role in the development of just war theory, noting that war is not desirable but is acceptable under certain limited circumstances.

Marcus Tullius Cicero was born in 106 BC during the period of the Roman Republic, and he would live to see its end by the time of his death in 43 BC. An influential statesman, he successfully moved his way up through elected office until he held the rank of consul in 63 BC (Clayton, 2005). As an orator, political theorist, philosopher and lawyer, Cicero was well-known in his lifetime and his work would remain influential for several centuries. His writings also influenced many church figures in later decades, including Lactantius, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Augustine would later incorporate Cicero’s ideas with Christian thought, and would work to synthesize Ciceronian and Christian stances toward war (Marrin 1971, 52). Cicero’s work had a profound impact on the development of a just war tradition, and his writings would be studied and admired throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance period.

During his lifetime, Cicero would witness the decline of the Republic and Caesar’s rise to power. These events would impact his philosophical views and ultimately lead to his death. As a Roman constitutionalist, Cicero believed the Republic was the best form of government available to man because it provided a proper balance between monarchic, aristocratic and democratic elements. The Republic would encounter difficulties, however, when moral decay managed to take hold among the aristocracy. Cicero would increasingly borrow from Stoic positions because he believed that their system was not perfect, but was the best set of ethical principles available in his time (Clayton, 2005). Guiding his philosophical beliefs toward the political realm, he rejected the pursuit of pleasure emphasized by the Epicureans, believing politicians should not pursue wealth or power but should work to improve their communities instead. Humans were unique from other animals since they alone possessed the ability to reason, and that this ability should be employed to build a better society. For Cicero, reason was placed above pleasure. Although he drew upon Stoicism for his framework, Cicero did not hold firmly to a deontological system. He believed Stoic ethical principles had flaws but were the best option to follow. At times, Cicero would also shift his positions while he was an orator in order to form a more cogent argument in favor of his cause.

War is addressed in fragments of Cicero’s De Re Publica (On the Commonwealth), a work which was written in the form of a dialogue between different characters. In the book, Laelius describes when a war is acceptable: “a war is never undertaken by the ideal State, except in defense of its honour or of its safety…those wars are unjust which are undertaken without provocation. For only a war waged for revenge or defence can actually be just…no war is considered just unless it has been proclaimed and declared, or unless reparation has first been demanded” (Keyes 2000, 211-213). The character of Laelius is describing principles which remain present in modern just war theory, such as just cause and legitimate authority. These conditions, along with other duties of the state, are not only reflected in legal precedent but also in the natural law itself. The natural law is universal and unalterable, with God as its author. By violating this law and waging war indiscriminately, a state would not only be going against prior human practices, but it would also set itself in opposition to basic human nature. Since the natural law is universal, every government was expected to recognize and follow the responsibilities required of them. Among these responsibilities, the state is expected to defend its citizens and protect them from the aggression of other states, while avoiding unprovoked violence and going to war only after the state officially declares the start of hostilities. Cicero appears to be in agreement with Laelius on these principles, describing many of his own views through him. These themes would resurface in some of his other writings.

Cicero organized a set of principles regarding correct conduct in war within a philosophical work he wrote later in his life, De Officiis (On Obligations). This work took the form of a letter to his son, Marcus, providing instructions on how to live an ethical life. De Officiis was written late in Cicero’s life, at a time when he was not involved in the political realm. During this time, Cicero turned to philosophy and sought to demonstrate how ethical principles could be put into practice. The pursuit of philosophy was primarily a Greek practice in Cicero’s time, as Romans were unfamiliar and at times hostile to Greek philosophers. It was Cicero’s intent to introduce philosophical concepts to Roman society, since he believed these concepts would be complementary to politics when put to practical use. When introducing philosophical positions in his writing, Cicero employed several examples from prior Roman practices in order to familiarize his audience to the concepts and show how the ethical principles he endorsed could be employed in a practical situation.

In De Officiis, Cicero addresses war in a section that dealt with justice. War is recognized as the use of force on behalf of opposing states, not an engagement between small factions or individuals. The state decided when to begin waging war and shaped policy in wartime. Faced with this responsibility, there were certain conditions that needed to be satisfied before entering into war and during combat. The obligations that were to be followed possess two key parts, the recognition of an ultimate good and a practical element carried out through established laws. When applied to war, Cicero believed the state should only use force after other diplomatic options were unsuccessful. He wrote, “there are two ways of settling a dispute: first, by discussion; second, by physical force; and since the former is characteristic of man, the latter of the brute, we must resort to force only in case we may not avail ourselves of discussion” (Miller 1928, 37). Since man had the ability to employ reason, it would be unacceptable for a state to enter into war without attempting to resolve the conflict through other means first. It would not be a just situation for men to use force against others without considering alternatives or weighing the consequences beforehand. Such an action would be expected from an animal, but not from a more rational being.

If peaceful alternatives failed and war was deemed necessary, the state would also be responsible for issuing a warning and an official declaration of war before engaging in hostilities with an enemy nation. War would be considered just only if such a proclamation was made, a principle recognized in the modern era as a declaration by legitimate authority. For Cicero, this authority was the fetiales, a priestly group which had traditionally declared war on behalf of Rome (Marrin, 1971). Once this was accomplished, troops were expected to follow correct codes of conduct during the war. Cicero stated that soldiers must fulfill their obligations, noting an example where Marcus Cato wrote to his son advising him not to enter into battle before he took an oath as a soldier, since he had not taken the oath since the time he had last been discharged. Cicero notes, “the man who is not legally a soldier has no right to be fighting the foe” (Miller, 39). There were strict obligations which needed to be followed by troops in a conflict, and only those soldiers who took an official oath to serve could participate in war. In this way, soldiers were differentiated from the general population and fully accepted the responsibilities of a soldier in wartime. Individuals were also expected to keep any promises they made with an enemy, even if the promise was made under duress.

During a war, Cicero expected to behave responsibly and in accordance with proper codes of conduct. The use of deceit was to be avoided. Cicero cites an agreement once made between two nations, who each agreed to a truce for thirty days. One side continued their attacks in the evening, however, claiming that the treaty did not mention any prohibition on waging war at night. When fraud occurred in such a way, Cicero found it contemptible and in accordance with the phrase summum ius summa iniuria, translated as “more law, less justice” (Miller, 35). Cicero believed that both force and fraud were undesirable, but that the employment of fraud was a more detestable action than the use of force. Writing after the Republic’s collapse, Cicero believes that Rome would still have a constitutional government if peace had been established in a just manner. Cicero argued that soldiers should fight honorably and only enter into battle for a legitimate cause. “The only excuse, therefore, for going to war is that we may live in peace unharmed; and when the victory is won, we should spare those who have not been blood-thirsty and barbarous in their warfare” (Miller, 37). Cicero identifies peace as the ultimate goal of war, and this condition would be met ideally through the pursuit of a reasonable, limited retribution toward an enemy who had fought honorably and fairly in battle.

Cicero also outlined the proper conduct expected from soldiers upon the conclusion of a war. If a state’s forces are victorious, mercy should be shown to those from the other side who had fought honorably and displayed repentance in their defeat. Cicero describes what would be known in modern times as the principle of proportionality in warfare. He distinguishes between a war where two rival forces fight for supremacy, and one where two fierce enemies fight for survival. For the former, the victorious nation should treat the other reasonably, since Cicero believed that there was a limit to the retribution a victorious side could seek. For the latter, since the defeated opponents had been barbarous and deceitful during war, the winning side should not treat them as kindly. Cicero notes that this distinction is made only after a war has ended. A state is expected to enter into war and conduct itself in a uniform matter during all armed conflicts, pursuing diplomacy to resolve the situation beforehand and acting honorably during war if no other option is available.

When examining past Roman military expeditions, Cicero justified the destruction of Carthage by citing the ruthlessness of their enemy and their tendency to violate treaties. He noted that Rome treated other conquered groups fairly, admitting them into the Republic and granting them citizenship rights. He also gives an example: when Rome was fighting the forces of Pyrrhus, a deserter came to the Romans and said he could kill the enemy leader through the use of poison. The Senate decided this strategy involved the use of deceit, which they could not support. The deserter was delivered back to Pyrrhus, even though the enemy had been a significant threat to Rome. Cicero mostly supports how Rome treated conquered opponents, with a notable exception. “I wish they had not destroyed Corinth; but I believe they had some special reason for what they did — its convenient situation, probably — and feared that its very location might some day furnish a temptation to renew the war” (Miller, 37). In this outcome, practical concerns may have been placed at a higher priority than the principles previously set in practice. Cicero believes that there may have been some valid reasoning behind the decision, but could not accept a similar situation if it occurred solely out of a desire for revenge.

The events Cicero dealt with during his life show some insight into his ethical principles as they were put into practice. During his time as a governor in Cilicia, Cicero writes in a letter that force had been used to repel a group of raiding mountain tribes (Harrier, 1918). The conflict in this case was not considered a war, since the robbers were not fighting on behalf of another nation and were treated similarly to pirates and other criminals. While he was a consul, Cicero unveiled a conspiracy led by Catiline, which had sought to end the Republic and gain power through force. Five of the conspirators were killed without trial on Cicero’s orders. Cicero’s actions in breaking up this conspiracy demonstrate his contempt for the deceitful plots of the men. The conspirators were summarily executed without mercy due to their actions. Since they were not in a legitimate position to use force, and their plan was to be accomplished through the use of fraud, they deserved their fate. Cicero remained popular and proclaimed his actions had saved the Republic. There were, however, some who disagreed with his treatment of the conspirators. Within a few years, Cicero went into exile after a newly-introduced law made the killing of a Roman citizen without trial a crime punishable by expulsion. This law applied retroactively and was designed to target Cicero. Although Cicero was allowed to return to Rome eventually, but he was to refrain from becoming involved in politics and spent this time focusing on philosophy.

Cicero would have to make some difficult decisions during the turbulent years of his later life. As the Republic deteriorated, Cicero did not believe that rule by either Caesar or Pompey would be desirable, since both men would effectively bring an end to the Republic (Clayton, 2005). He reluctantly supported Pompey during the civil war that ensued. After Caesar claimed victory, Cicero was pardoned and he returned to Rome. The assassination of Caesar in 44 BC reopened hostilities as the members of the second triumvirate fought to seize control. Cicero took advantage of this opportunity to endorse Octavian, Caesar’s adopted son. He delivered a series of speeches in the senate supporting Octavian and opposing Marc Antony. In this way, Cicero hoped Octavian would gain support and triumph against Antony, and the Republic ultimately could be restored. Octavian was young at the time, and Cicero believed he could be swept aside once Antony had been dealt with. However, Cicero would not be successful in this approach. A temporary power-sharing agreement called for the execution of political opponents, and Antony wanted Cicero killed on account of the scathing criticisms that were delivered before the senate. Octavian was bound to carry out this request in order to sustain their agreement. Cicero was killed in 43 BC as he fled Rome.

During the later years of his life, Cicero had worked to maintain Rome’s republican institutions. He opposed the actions of Caesar and reluctantly chose sides in the conflicts that followed. When he found it necessary to take a position, Cicero decided to act based on which policies he believed would be most likely to restore the Republic. Cicero would not be successful in this goal, but his efforts led to the development of a substantial legacy. His popularity remained and the literature he produced would be admired for centuries. One of his philosophical works, the Hortensius, would deeply influence Augustine to pursue philosophy, a path which would ultimately lead to his conversion to Christianity.

St. Augustine of Hippo was a Roman philosopher and theologian who lived under the Roman Empire from 354-430 AD. Having converted to Christianity in his thirties, Augustine later became the bishop of Hippo in North Africa. Rome would be sacked by barbarian raids during his lifetime, and the decline of the Empire influenced his outlook on the state and its proper role in conducting war. Augustine is considered the father of the just war theory, setting down several principles in his work The City of God.

Augustine laid out what modern just war theory would describe as just cause, legitimate authority, and right intention. He distinguished between individual use of force and the use of force by the state. War could not be justified without an official declaration from the state. According to Augustine, war should not be declared without a just cause, which would include either self defense or protection of the vulnerable. He notes that war may be justified in certain situations, but it is never desirable:

The wise man will wage just wars. As if he would not all the rather lament the necessity of just wars, if he remembers that he is a man; for if they were not just he would not wage them, and would therefore be delivered from all wars. It is the wrongdoing of the opposing party which compels the wise man to wage just wars; and this wrong-doing, even though it gave rise to no war, would still be matter of grief to man because it is man's wrong-doing. Let every one, then, who thinks with pain on all these great evils, so horrible, so ruthless, acknowledge that this is misery. And if any one either endures or thinks of them without mental pain, this is a more miserable plight still, for he thinks himself happy because he has lost human feeling.” [Dods 1887, XIX.7]

Augustine supported individual pacifism, while war could occur in certain limited situations. Like Cicero, war was seen as an undesirable condition but was to be conducted under certain circumstances in order to bring about peace. All men should be against war, but there are limited situations where war would need to be declared in order to prevent an even greater evil from occurring.

Augustine wrote at a time when the Roman Empire was experiencing a state of decline in the west. Significant threats to the Empire’s stability materialized and the sack of Rome was a heavy psychological blow to many Romans. Cicero had been in a similar tumultuous environment, as war had led to the end of the Roman Republic. Augustine recognized that the state’s use of force, when limited and aimed at establishing peace, was justifiable. Augustine notes the tranquility of order, the tranquillitas ordinis, which is sought by humankind. Augustine notes, “every man seeks peace by waging war, but no man seeks war by making peace” (Dods, XIX.12). This applies even to those who conduct war in order to achieve glory, since they ultimately desire the defeat of their enemy and peace through successful conquest. Augustine notes that peace can be found in nature, residing among animals as well. War occurs when pride causes men to seek dominance over other men, who are meant to be their equals. Each party involved in the conflict has a serious disagreement with the others over how the peacetime situation should be shaped. One side may wish to preserve its power and influence, while another side may feel like it deserves greater recognition and that it can only increase the influence it deserves through the use of force. Each side wants to establish peace, although they pursue different ends which they believe would accomplish a more desirable peace in their favor. When taken to an extreme, a prideful man seeks a peace where all others are subject to him. Augustine states that this is a condition that is contrary to nature (Dods, XIX.12). When this situation occurs, an unjust peace has been made which makes additional conflict more likely.

Augustine demonstrates that war is directed toward peace, and the state is directed toward providing order. Although the state pursues these goals, neither the peace nor the order provided by earthly institutions can be permanent. The City of God, however, does provide a permanent peace. Sin, however, managed to separate man from God and resulted in mankind’s present condition (Mattox 2011). It was this separation that resulted in war and the establishment of state institutions. Citing God’s command in Genesis, humans were meant to have dominion over other animals. Augustine notes that this original command does not extend to other humans. “He did not intend that His rational creature, who was made in His image, should have dominion over anything but the irrational creation - not man over man, but man over the beasts. And hence the righteous men in primitive times were made shepherds of cattle rather than kings of men” Dods, XIX.15). The political dominance of the state, as well as the institution of slavery, was not intended by God but was introduced through sin. Augustine recognized that, although the state is imperfect, it helps establish order and administer justice. For Augustine, the practice of war was regrettable but it was to be conducted under circumstances where intervention would stop an additional evil. Justice called for either the prevention of wrongdoing or the punishment of criminal acts after they have occurred.

Although Augustine shared many of Cicero’s views regarding proper conduct in war, he was not always in agreement with how Cicero characterized what constituted a just war. While Cicero stated that retribution was disproportionate in some instances, such as in Corinth, he believed Rome had ultimately expanded and conquered additional territory using methods which were just. Augustine, who was witnessing the decline of the Empire centuries later, did not see stability along the extended frontiers of Rome. Instead, he witnessed how war could provoke further conflicts:

“Whereas Cicero had sought a legalistic rationale for Roman imperialism, Augustine delved more deeply. He asserted that through greed and pride Rome had built an empire whose very size, coupled with its attempt to assimilate vastly differing peoples, provoked its neighbors and spawned civil wars. These wars led in turn to further expansion, more provocations, and more war. But these were, strictly speaking, defensive wars, and therefore ‘just.’” [Marrin 1971]

Augustine believed that it was better to establish peace with a good neighbor than it was to conquer a bad one through war (Dods 1887, IV.15). The Roman Empire was partly to blame for the aggression it encountered, seeking to conquer in such a way that it gained the resentment of foreign tribes and led to additional violence. Although there were other factors behind the decline of Rome in the west, Augustine believes that some of the fault lies with Rome’s expansionist policies.

In Contra Faustum, Augustine cites biblical events that demonstrate war is acceptable under some circumstances. He notes that Abraham obeyed God’s commands and would have sacrificed his own son. In some cases, war occurred under a divine command. Jesus told his disciples to pay money to Caesar, even when the tribute money went toward military expenditures. Jesus did not ask the centurion to leave military service. Augustine recognizes and supports individual pacifism, but he does not adopt the viewpoint of an absolute pacifist. For example, he allowed the use of force to break up heretical Donatist groups after negotiations failed to resolve the conflict. The use of force was justifiable in soma cases: “When war is undertaken in obedience to God, who would rebuke, or humble, or crush the pride of man, it must be allowed to be a righteous war; for even the wars which arise from human passion cannot harm the eternal well-being of God, nor even hurt His saints…No one can have any power against them but what is given him from above” (Stothert 1887, XXII.75). Augustine believes that a ruler, even if he is unjust, is in his position because God has permitted him to remain in power. Individual soldiers are instructed to follow the orders of their leader, and if these orders are unjust the soldiers would not be punished. Only a ruler would be held morally responsible for misdirecting his soldiers, since they must wage war with right intention and soldiers are obligated to follow their commands. It would be considered treason for a soldier to disobey a direct order (Dods 1887, I.26). A soldier would, however, be held responsible if he killed someone as an individual without receiving the command of a higher authority. Such an action would be considered murder.

One of Augustine’s major contributions to just war theory was the classification of just war theory into three main principles (Allman 2008, Mattox 2011). These principles are referred to as just cause, legitimate authority, and right intention. The state’s role was to officially declare a war, and this could only occur when alternative efforts to resolve the issue have failed and the state has a valid reason to enter into war, such as self-defense. During war, efforts must be guided with the correct intention, in order to pursue a just peace. For his contributions to the just war tradition, Augustine is often considered the father of the just war theory (Allman 2008, 83). His efforts would contribute to a shift in Christian thought from pacifism to a more realist view, where war was undesirable but could occur under limited circumstances.

Both Cicero and Augustine would significantly impact the development of just war tradition. Cicero sought to adapt philosophy to the political realm, applying ethical principles to practical situations. Augustine adapted Cicero’s views from a Christian perspective and worked to construct guidelines to determine what would constitute a just war. Neither Cicero nor Augustine supported war, but recognized it was acceptable under limited circumstances. Cicero witnessed the end of the Republic and hoped to return to constitutional traditions, seeing a republic as the best form of government. Augustine wrote under similar tumultuous circumstances, as the Roman Empire declined in the west. He believed that state intervention was necessary to maintain worldly order, noting a distinction between the City of God and the present condition of humanity. Although the reality of war was accepted as an unfortunate necessity, Cicero and Augustine believed certain principles and responsibilities could be defined in order to lessen the frequency and impact of war on society.

[Chromeo]

I don't know how I feel about just/limited war. On the one hand it's much kinder to everyone than barbarian style war, but on the other hand does it anestisize the pain of war and just encourage it?

[Tails82]

Both individualism and collectivism, when taken to extremes, are harmful to society. America has a strong tradition of individualism from the time of the nation’s founding. However, this was usually coupled with a sense of responsibility and a connection to the community. In recent years, it seems as if individuals are withdrawing from traditional institutions such as marriage, church attendance, and involvement in community organizations. Some have sought to disconnect themselves from these societal connections in favor of individual pursuits, entertainment and other pleasures. Americans tend to have a very strong concept of individual rights which prevailed over monarchy, slavery and communism during the Cold War, when collectivism was rejected. Many Americans remain open to the other extreme, where the individual pursues his or her own happiness at the expense of societal mores, and sometimes even laws. Excessive individualism clearly poses a greater threat to American society.

Brian Palmer from Habits of the Heart represents one manifestation of excessive individualism. He states that it is best when individuals pursue what they want, even if it can lead to individual harm, as long as it does not infringe on someone else’s property or privacy. He mentions drug use as an acceptable individual right, although if it led to an accident or overdose it could easily harm family members and others. He seems comfortable with divorce even though this can damage families. Brian is unwilling to take a stand on some issues. “I don’t think I would pontificate and say that I’m in a position to establish values for humanity in general, although I’m sufficiently conceited to say that if the rest of the world would live by my value system it would be a better place” (p. 7). By placing his own values first, Brian lacks a standard by which he can measure himself. His values can change fairly easily and are inconsistent. It would be more fitting to refer to them as personal preferences or individual desires, not values. He even seems hesitant to defend them and, wanting to remain politically correct, frames the statement so that he does not appear to be pushing them on others. He may believe his transient values represent the better path, but he is also fine if others choose not to follow them. Not wanting to judge, he effectively places two contradictory sets of values on equal footing by finding both acceptable. Benedict XVI referred to such conditions as a “dictatorship of relativism.” Several different viewpoints, even harmful ones, are accepted as long as they do not get in the way of someone else’s pursuit of pleasure.

Religious values offer a more concrete foundation for an ethical system, but individualism can be taken to extremes within religion as well. Groups such as the Amish have a strong sense of community, but in order to accomplish it they withdraw from conventional society. Those who leave some communities are shunned. When taken to an extreme, religious individualism leads to one closing himself off from much of society. In the novel Terrorist, Ahmad’s teacher declares outsiders as the enemy and urges his student to “abstain and turn away! Do without these women of non-Heavenly flesh, this earthly baggage, these unclean hostages of fortune! Travel light, straight into Paradise!” (p. 108). Such a system rejects the world entirely and writes off a large segment of the population as hopelessly damned. Not only are the healthy without need of a physician, but the sick are rejected and treated as opponents.

Terrorist also describes the other side of individualism, one where personal responsibility seems to have disappeared and replaced with a mentality where anything is acceptable. When Adam Bronson, the immigrant from Barbados, looks at student behavior at the New Prospect school he says, “education was so precious to us. We never dreamed of mischief. Here in this grand building you need guards as if in a jail, and the students do everything destructive. I do not understand this American hatred of decent order.” The response he gets back is, “Think of it as a love of freedom” (p.113). For the students at New Prospect, education is seen as an inconvenience, a bland and unnecessary obstruction that gets in the way of their personal lives. Authority is readily rejected in the pursuit of individual desires, a trend that can be seen in modern American society. Entire movements, such as the recent Occupy protests, take pride in the idea that the group does not have a leader and unreasonable entitlements such as student loan forgiveness are expected. Individualism becomes divisive, where one group feels it can only succeed when a perceived rival group is torn down. Politicians appeal to certain groups for votes, making promises they may or may not keep in order to get ahead. Former President Kennedy’s words, “Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country,” seem to be forgotten. Individual interests are placed ahead of what would be best for the country as a whole. Some are willing to accept cuts to every program except the one that benefits them, seek higher taxes for any group as long as they aren’t a part of it, or want a building put up anywhere but near where they live. Cooperation is replaced with confrontation, and others are readily blamed while personal responsibility is rejected. Individuals readily seek to do what they want but are reluctant to accept the consequences of their actions.

American society faces the present danger of over-emphasizing individualism, to the detriment of community organizations and traditional institutions. When individual desires are put ahead of other concerns, it becomes more difficult to address problems as a society. The individual has been elevated to a position where even activities that break the law are defended with the claim that they enhance personal freedom. These actions, however, are done at society’s expense and it is in the community’s best interest when they are not performed, which is often why they were originally outlawed. Actions like the abuse of illegal substances may bring personal pleasure, but they also come with the danger of addiction and would impact the community in the case of injury or death. Other actions, such as divorce, can be done to sever ties and enhance individual freedom but also break up families. When individual desires are placed above societal concerns, the community is neglected. When everyone’s contrasting individual views are accepted as equally valid, a consistent position cannot be enforced and laws are disregarded as simply someone else’s opinion. When authorities and traditions are avoided or even resented in favor of individual pleasure, society cannot last in a stable form.

[Mastery]

As a school project on careers we're interested in going to, I chose Game Design. I had to write about the history of Game Development, but looking through I figure it pretty much goes hand in hand with the history of computers and technologies the last 40 years, but I just wanted to talk about the actual game aspects so I looked back a bit farther and I got, well, this.

SPOILER: Click to show

A brief history of Game Development

When you think of Game development as a career, or games in general, you may think of works of media that involve a lot of computers, and terms such as “graphics” can be thrown around. Your mind may go to such specific titles as Super Mario, The Legend of Zelda, or perhaps more infamously, Grand Theft Auto. Indeed these games involve heavy use of cinematics and have wildly different audiences, and what differentiates them from the big blockbuster movie productions is that in they’re interactive, and in the end, that’s what really matters.

Games, and game development, have existed way before computers, perhaps since the dawn of man. And the pre-historic men that made these games were the first game designers: making a contest with arbitrary rules to entertain. As more people played these games, the more they evolved. More rules would be added, some taken away, the objectives would change. Modern game designers would call this testing and balancing. There are even recent examples of non-electronic games exhibiting this. The modern incarnation of Basketball was invented by Dr. James Naismith who came up with Basketball as in indoor sport to play at the YMCA during the winter-time.

Eventually the game picked up popularity. The game started being banned for rough play, and leagues such as the NBA had trouble gaining fans. These were due to inherent flaws in game design, as Basketball was still in the testing phase and had balance issues, as modern game designers would put it. The flaws were that the team with a point advantage would endlessly pass to other players and the losing team would have to commit fouls to get the ball and a chance to score. The NBA then came up with a timer, the Shot Clock, and made it a rule to try to score a point before the timer was up whether you had a point advantage or not, eliminating all issues of a team dragging the game on or having to commit fouls to get the ball back.

The simple addition of a timer to get the ball into the hoop changed the goal, and therefore pace, nature and the way people play the game, and many agree it was a change for the better. Therein lies the beauty of game design: a game is made fun not only by the goals the player has to acheive, but also by the rules the game designers come up with to maximize entertainment.

But games nowadays aren’t solely arbitrary competitions between multiple people, though they often are. The modern game is very much known for the narrative experience it can convey, and many games try to emulate other forms of art to achieve this. But narrative in games also exists before the electronic video game. You may have played one of the earliest forms of narrative game at one point, where a storyteller may cast you as the main character of a story and then present you with situations where you can decide what you do or what happens next, thus effecting the story. Since the mid-20th century, these existed in book form, as Gamebooks. The rules were simple, allowing multiple choice paths in a story, but was broad enough that many different stories could be made using the same game.

This evolved with the Role-Playing Game, the most famous perhaps being Dungeons and Dragons. These added more advanced game mechanics to the same idea. The first was the players being able to describe their own characters and personalities so they’d play a greater role in the game, which modern game designers call “Immersion”. This was very important in creating a fulfilling narrative experience in a game. The other mechanics they added was the use of systems of calculations to decide what happens in the game and the story, involving formulas for things such as attacking an enemy or persuading a would-be ally, each character having their own values for the skills they need to complete those tasks and dice to create an element of chance to these encounters, so that things may not always go as the player expects or plans. And though it took a while for electronic games to create adaptations of Role-Playing Games, these systems are what allowed the birth of the Video Game.

Pioneers in the field of computers experimented with games to develop Artificial intelligence, starting with board games such as chess where the computer was the opponent. Then they allowed the computer to be a placeholder for the board, or later, a referee; as two players had inputs to how a game went starting with the very first Video Game, Tennis For Two: an analogue game with vector graphics. Games evolved with computers, and developers started creating single-player experiences, which alway existed in the form of puzzles, now available as interactive puzzles such as tetris. Finally, computer engineers found a way to have the computer as a stand-in for the story teller and create single-player narrative experiences beginning with simple text-based multiple choice stories such as Colossal Cave (which is also known as Adventure) and Zork. Graphics were eventually added, creating greater immersion as people played the role of a jungle explorer in Pitfall or a Knight fighting Dragons in Adventure (Not to be confused with the text adventure mentioned above).

The evolution of the Video Game industry in it’s early stages can be seen as a very concise overview of the evolution of games in general, and in more recent years it has taken a life of its own as games are being played by more and more people and becoming respected as a narrative form and even being recognized by The Smithsonian as a form of art due to the wide variety of play styles games employ and the wide variety of narrative experiences that can be found in no other work of art. Indeed, the electronic game industry is where most aspiring developers want to go into when they talk about the game industry in general, despite the fact that the non-electronic game industry is still around, like Hasbro’s board games, the Tabletop RPGs from Wizards of the Coast, or the Trading Card Games developed by the aforementioned Wizards and also Konami.

And for good reason too, the big name modern games you hear about a lot have very big budgets that match those of high end blockbuster films, and unlike the early days of video games, it doesn’t take a genius computer engineer who wanted to create a fun piece of software. The modern game employs a wide variety of individuals with a wide variety of skills to contribute to the overall quality of a video game, such as a team of programmers to create the rules, goals and mechanics the game adheres, the writers to create the story and immersion of a narrative game, the graphic artists to create the visuals not only to look nice but also to convey important game information to the player without breaking immersion, the composers and audio engineers to create the soundtrack as well as important sound effects, the designers whose vision is being made reality with the creation of the game, and the testers to make sure the game ends up being fun and entertaining so the developers can come up with their own Shot Clock equivalents so the game isn’t released to the public in the same state as early Basketball games were.

It needs some touching up and I have to add my sources but I'm pretty proud at only mentioning electronic crap in the last few paragraphs and talking solely about game design.