I was too terrified to close my eyes, though the cool forest air whipped around my face and burned them.

SYNTACTICAL AMBIGUITY
How many faces does Bella have?

---

Bella asked about Edward’s age; Edward dithered about telling her.

“I wonder if it will upset you,” he reflected to himself.

What just happened?
(a) Yes, Bella, he is talking to you. You can tell because he addressed you.
(b) Edward is addressing himself in second person, wondering if he’ll upset himself. He might be a little schizo. He does hear voices, after all.
(c) DAMNIT, STEPHENIE.

I’m probably geeking out a little too much over this, but I’ve read about six pages so far and I can’t stop reading it.

Men nearly always follow the tracks made by others and proceed in their affairs by imitation, even though they cannot entirely keep to the tracks of others or emulate the prowess of their models. So a prudent man must always follow in the footsteps of great men and imitate those who have been outstanding. If his own prowess fails to compare to theirs, at least it has an air of greatness about it. He must behave like the archers who, if they are skillful, when the target seems too distant, know the capabilities of their bow and aim a good deal higher than their objective, not in order to shoot so high but so that by aiming high they can reach the target.

I say, therefore, that in completely new states, where the prince himself is a newcomer, the difficulty he encounters in maintaining his rule is more or less serious insofar as he is more or less able. And since the very fact that from being a private citizen he has become a prince presupposes either ability or good fortune, it would seem that one or the other of these should to some extent lessen many of the difficulties encountered. None the less, the less a man has relied on fortune the stronger he has made his position.

As the doctors say of a wasting disease, to start with it is easy to cure but difficult to diagnose; after a time, unless it has been diagnosed and treated at the outset, it becomes easy to diagnose but difficult to cure. So it is with politics. Political disorders can be quickly healed if they are seen well in advance (and only a prudent ruler has such foresight); when, for lack of a diagnosis, they are allowed to grow in such a way that everyone can recognize them, remedies are too late.

I’m not far into the book yet, but I’m looking forward to continuing with it. I can’t say I agree with everything in it, but it does have some rather insightful nuggets that will prove useful if I ever become a dictator.

Long-time readers and friends probably know about my disdain for Idealist philosophy. That same conviction is actually the binding force of Existentialism—rather than a comprehensive system, it is a reaction against another system of irresponsible optimism.

Idealism gave birth to the concept of Utopianism. Those who knew me in college know how much I was into books like 1984, Brave New World, and Fahrenheit 451—books that were literary reactions against Utopianism. That was actually a precursor to my Existential tendencies. I just didn’t see utopia as the answer to man’s problems. I didn’t see it as a very realistic or even desirable goal.

This quote, taken from Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground, sums up pretty neatly why I fall into this camp:

You see, you gentlemen have, to the best of my knowledge, taken your whole register of human advantages from the average statistical figures and politico-economical formulas. Your advantages are prosperity, wealth, freedom, peace—and so on, and so on. So that the man that should, for instance, go openly and knowingly in opposition to all that list would … be an obscurantist or an absolute madman. … But, you know, that is what is surprising; why does it so happen that all these statisticians, sages and lovers of humanity, when they reckon up human advantages invariably leave one out?

…

The fact is, gentlemen, it seems there must really exist something that is dearer to almost every man than his greatest advantages, or (not to be illogical) there is a most advantageous advantage (the very one omitted of which we spoke just now) which is more important and more advantageous than all other advantages. … This advantage is remarkable from the very fact that it breaks down all our classifications and continually shatters every system constructed by lovers of mankind for the benefit of mankind.

…

One’s own free unfettered choice, one’s own caprice, however wild it may be, one’s own fancy worked up at times to a frenzy—is that very “most advantageous advantage” which we have overlooked, which comes under no classification and against which all systems and theories are continually being shattered to atoms. … What man wants is simply independent choice, whatever that independence may cost and wherever it may lead. And choice, of course, the devil only knows what choice.

The power and sheer unpredictability of human choice and free will is what will always prevent utopia. Not because I don’t trust mankind to make the right and noble decisions, but because I think that, deprived of our choice, we will be much worse off than we are now.

This is also what I consider to be the main reason why the Christian God allows things like war and genocide. Without complete freedom of choice, even the choice to make abhorrent decisions, the love and devotion of mankind means nothing to an omnipotent God. (For those who don’t know, Existentialism was originally a Christian philosophy. Read up on Soren Kierkegaard for more information on that side of it.)

I guess I’m a cynic in that I believe that pain and suffering are going to be an ever-present reality while we’re all alive. Would I want to take that away, given a fair chance? Absolutely. Do I think we can do it without sacrificing the greatest parts of ourselves? Not really. Here’s another quote, by Unanamo:

“Which would you find more appalling: to feel such a pain as would deprive you of your faculties on being pierced through with a white-hot iron, or to see yourself thus pierced through without feeling anything?”

This does nothing to my desire to help people, on both a macro and a micro level, and I would hope that it does not detract from any inclinations you may have to do so. But, as even Jesus said, the poor will always be with us.

Gryffindor – Guardians (SJs)
Hufflepuff – Idealists (NFs)
Ravenclaw – Artisans (SPs)
Slytherin – Rationals (NTs)

Something abut the Ravenclaws and Slytherins has bugged me. Artisans are the opportunists of the bunch, which lines up more closely with what Slytherin seems to be all about. Also, Rationals are all about learning. But, as Mandy pointed out, some of the Artisans are far too positive to be Slytherins. So I think it’s a little more complicated than archetypal sorting can say.

So I came up with this list of examples from the Harry Potter universe. Maybe we can trace these characters back to their houses and get a better idea from there.

Artisans
ESTP – Fred and George Weasley
ESFP – Dean Thomas
ISTP – Victor Krum
ISFP – Horace Slughorn

Guardians
ESTJ – Ron Weasley (a little unsure on this one… Minerva McGonagal would be a good second choice)
ESFJ – Ginny Weasley
ISTJ – Hermione Granger
ISFJ – Neville Longbottom (although he’s so unsure of himself, we don’t see it until the end)

Rationals
ENTJ – Draco Malfoy
ENTP – Albus Dumbledore
INTJ – Severus Snape
INTP – Luna Lovegood

Idealists
ENFJ – Cedric Diggory
ENFP – Nymphadora Tonks
INFJ – Fleur Delacour
INFP – Remus Lupin

Where does Harry fall, you might ask? In some ways, he’s very much an ISTJ—duty-bound and constantly taking on unwanted responsibilities that he’s afraid will slip through the cracks. But in other ways, he has the introspection and tortured persona of an INFJ. I think he leans more toward the former than the latter, but he’s an interesting mix.

As for Lord Voldemort, he’s very much an INTJ.

So, by my chart, the introverted Artisans and the judging Rationals are Slytherins. The extraverted Artisans are yet more Gryffindors, and the perceiving Rationals are Ravenclaws. Of course, there are exceptions to any rule, but those are my predictions.

This would make Gryffindor the overwhelmingly largest house, meaning there’s either a flaw in my logic, or a flaw in Rowling’s. (Or maybe she wanted it that way. Who knows?)

One, though, really puts me in my place. His name is Baba Brinkman, and, although he raps in modern English, this is some of the most brilliant English major rapping I have ever seen. This was performed live at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe 2005. (The second and third are the best, in my opinion.)

I don’t know if I totally agree with this, because according to this, I’m evenly split between Slytherin and Hufflepuff. HUFFLEPUFF! Hufflepuffs can’t even go outside for fear of getting their asses kicked by the Gryffindors and Slytherins. I was sure I was a Ravenclaw… But now, not so sure.

Before you get too mad, take a deep breath and realize that this is a joke. (Except for Melville. He’s right where he needs to be.)

If you read it, you should know: it’s a comedy. If you read it as a straight drama, it comes off as pretty disturbing; if you read it as a comedy, it comes off as pretty funny. (Imagine serious characters behaving as Warner Brothers cartoon characters and you’ll see the difference.)

Anyway, the play is about two men, Estragon and Vladimir, spending their whole lives waiting for this man named Godot. Who is Godot? They don’t really know. When is he coming? They never find out. What will he do when he comes? They can’t really figure it out. But day after day, they wait for him, and day after day, he never comes.

Now I see the similarity in the words: Godot is similar to God. That’s not what it is. Waiting for Godot was originally published in French, and Godot sounds nothing like the French word for God. In fact, the closest French word can mean either an old shoe or a mindlessly devoted follower. Also, Becket himself has said in an interview that Godot is not God. (He said, “if by Godot I had meant God I would [have] said God, and not Godot.”) He says even he doesn’t know who Godot is.

So why is this play so important if it is, in essence, about nothing? It all goes back to the existential idea that existence precedes essence. In other words, we exist first and we find or make the meaning for our lives second. These two men are waiting for something to give meaning to their lives, even though they don’t know what it is or when or even if it will ever come. (The play is actually much, much, much more complex than that—but that’s one take on it.)

But the really interesting part is that Estragon doesn’t even want to wait for Godot. He even leaves Vladimir at several points during the play and always finds himself back by his side, waiting for lack of options. Most of the time when he leaves, he’s beaten up by ruffians who travel the roads in the countryside. So even though he doesn’t want to, he’s forced to wait on Godot with Vladimir.

Estragon spends a good portion of the play struggling with an old pair of boots, suggesting that he already has his “Godot” and it’s not doing him any good. He’s actually waiting on someone else’s Godot. Godot himself has a mindlessly devoted follower in Vladimir, suggesting that he has his “Godot,” but has failed to take notice. Even Lucky, introduced later in Act I and again in Act II, has Pozzo—his mindlessly devoted follower. Vladimir is the only one without a “Godot” of some sort, and he’s the only optimistic one in the play. So the play, on a deeper level, hints at the cosmic joke that is life and the futility of waiting for it to take on more meaning.

Anyway, I bring this up for two reasons: One, I really miss talking about literature. (Semper fidelis, English majors!) Two, I’ve really been struggling lately with my lot in life. Since about age 16, I’ve been seeking out some higher purpose for my life; now, at 27, I’m a little frustrated that I haven’t found it. But I don’t know what it is or where to look for it. I’ve always struggled with the Goldilocks syndrome—this one’s too hot, this one’s too cold, and I’m waiting for the one that’s just right—but I think I’m finally coming to a tangible realization that I may have to create rather than stumble upon deeper meaning for my life.

(Just a disclaimer: I am a Christian, and I believe that I have a purpose in knowing and loving God and others. I’m talking about something a little more specific here.)

So anyway, no uplifting talk here. It’d just been a while since I posted any Existential angst and I was about due for a longer post of it. Also, coming out and saying this will hold me accountable to acting on it rather than waiting for my Godot. Any other Vladimirs (or Estragons) out there?