Reading Gordon Wood

I have a persistent fear that someday I may encounter a pack of smug and conceited history graduate students in a bar and find myself unprepared. Since I need to be ready for this contingency I am reading Gordon Wood’s Radicalism and the American Revolution. Commentary will follow in a few weeks.

A Passage to India - E.M. Forster

I did not expect E. M. Forster's A Passage to India to be heavy with metaphysics and musings on the meaning of life. To my delight, this classic contains copious amounts of both. This is a brilliant novel that works on many levels. In addition to its deep philosophical streak, it has an interesting story, incredibly deep and complex characters, as well as important and intricate social, political and historical commentary. Judging by reviews and online comments, many read this work primarily as a criticism and commentary on British colonialism and British interactions with the nation of India. While these elements represent major aspects of Forster’s work, these components are just the tip of a very large iceberg.

The novel opens as Adela Quested and Mrs. Moore arrive in India to assess the feasibility of Adela becoming engaged to Mrs. Moore’s son, Ronny Heaslop. Ronny is a British official stationed on the sub continent. Mrs. Moore initially shows a strong inclination to understand the people of India. Adela eventually does become engaged to Ronny. Meanwhile, the women meet an affable and ingratiating Indian Doctor named Aziz. Soon these characters embark on a visit to an enormous geographical formation known as the Marabar Caves. Separated from the rest of the group, Adela, while in some kind of incoherent trance that is prompted by the strange and mystical caves, falsely imagines that Aziz has attempted to attack her. The accusation brings the weight of the British Colonial community down upon Aziz. The doctor is supported by the local Indian community and one British ally, Cyril Fielding, who is the headmaster of the local Indian School and a progressive thinker. In a dramatic and politically charged trial, Aziz is only acquitted when Adela comes to her senses and announces that he likely did not commit the crime.

Though the remainder of the plot feels a little less focused and difficult to summarize, it is thematically and philosophically coherent and interesting. Adela is subsequently vilified as having betrayed the British community who still believe that Aziz is guilty. Mrs. Moore dies. The engagement between Adela and Ronny is broken off due to Adela’s estrangement from British society. However, Fielding and Adela develop a strong friendship and intellectual connection.

Due to his unwarranted persecution, Aziz becomes alienated and exhibits paranoia towards everything British. This hostility results in a falling out with Fielding. Several years after the trial, during the Hindu Festival of Lord Krishna, Fielding and Aziz reconcile, and it is presumed that Aziz will release some, but not all, of his bitterness.

The philosophy, both openly discussed and underlying this work, is so extremely multifaceted, complex, and varied that it would take several pages just to provide an accurate summery. Instead of attempting such a synopsis or analysis, I will focus on just one important point; the geographic object that is such an integral part of Forster’s book known as the Marabar Caves.

Marabar is one of the most striking non – human creations that I have encountered in literature. It has strong shades of Moby Dick. Like the great white behemoth, it is a huge and monstrous force of nature. It is symbolically and perhaps actually, a terrible malevolence. Though representing only a segment of the worldview presented in A Passage to India, it is integral to plot, characters and theme. Artistically, its presentation is marvelous.

Articulating exactly what Marabar represents is a little bit of a challenge. The geological miscreation exemplifies a complex set of ideas.  These concepts revolve around the realization that meaningless lies behind all existence. Upon encountering Marabar, several of the book’s characters become fixated upon the enormity of the universe as well as the inevitability of death, and come to see that human concepts such as honor, love, religion, profound experiences, etc. really mean nothing when viewed in the context of the totality all of creation.

A strange echo is heard in the caves, a constant monotonous sound describes as "Bourn".  This echo stays in the mind of several characters. The sound seems to represent a level of sameness and uniformity in the cosmos that ultimately obliterates all meaning to human life.

 Mrs. Moore, a person who up until she enters the caverns, believes in love as well as recognizing the value of understanding people who are different from her, and is generally optimistic, has a soul wrenching experience at Marabar.

“What had spoken to her in that scoured-out cavity of the granite?  What dwelt in the first of the caves? Something very old and very small. Before time, it was before space also. Something snub-nosed, incapable of generosity—the undying worm itself”

This encounter seems to illustrate the emptiness of eventual non-existence that is prevalent in the universe. Mrs. Moore subsequently no longer believes in love, honor, human achievement, religion, etc. She further ponders the effects that the revelations have had upon her. 

“She had come to that state where the horror of the universe and its smallness are both visible at the same time—the twilight of the double vision in which so many elderly people are involved. If this world is not to our taste, well, at all events there is Heaven, Hell, Annihilation-one or other of those large things, that huge scenic background of stars, fires, blue or black air. All heroic endeavour, and all that is known as art, assumes that there is such a background, just as all practical endeavour, when the world is to our taste, assumes that the world is all. But in the twilight of the double vision, a spiritual muddledom is set up for which no high-sounding words can be found; we can neither act nor refrain from action, we can neither ignore nor respect Infinity.”

Forster includes additional passages describing the awe inspiring spiritual emptiness that Marabar embodies. The writing in these passages, as well as in other sections of this book, is often sublime as well as a little horrifying. Marabar is a wondrous but disturbing aesthetic creation!

Forster’s worldview also includes what I would call a counterforce to the nihilism. This is the human tendency to strive to establish connections with one another. The theme of connection, common in Forster’s writings, is in itself explored with layers upon layers of complexity.

Which force is stronger? A Passage to India provides no easy answers. Aziz, who early in the novel is enthusiastic and eager to make connections with various English personages, has this zeal ripped away from him due to the false accusations, which are the direct result of Adela’s strange experience with the force of the cave. Similarly Mrs. Moore’s yearning to make connections with Indians is destroyed in Marabar.

In a passage that symbolically sets up the ability of this void to thwart human connections, Forster describes what happens when a person enters the cave and strikes a match,

“the visitor arrives for his five minutes, and strikes a match. Immediately another flame rises in the depths of the rock and moves towards the surface like an imprisoned spirit: the walls of the circular chamber have been most marvelously polished. The two flames approach and strive to unite, but cannot, because one of them breathes air, the other stone. “

Lest one conclude that worthlessness and emptiness always win out, hope for connectedness overcoming meaningless is at least suggested at the novel’s conclusion. During the Hindu Festival of Lord Krishna, several characters seem to experience some reinvigoration stemming from the Hindu concept that everything in the universe is connected and the festival’s mystical underpinnings. The triumph of the ability to connect is tempered however. Though Aziz and Fielding reconcile and temporarily reestablish their bond and friendship, both men realize that they will not associate with one in the future, as they have each moved into irreconcilable circles. The last lines of the novel illustrate that the natural forces in the world are constantly pushing against the human urge to connect.

I really appreciate the imagery and meaning that Forster has endowed upon Marabar. Humanity as a whole, as well as individual people and our concerns, exist in very big and seemingly uncaring universe. This cosmos will go on long after we, as well as all our creations and institutions, are dust. It is very easy for a perceptive person to become overwhelmed by this abyss. I also agree that the idea of connectedness between people, while possibly diminished by these realities, can serve as a source of value in contrast to this nihilism. My only qualm with Forster is that the author seems to be saying that human connectedness is the only counterweight in the grand scheme. While our associations with others are vital, I believe that there are other factors that one may look to as to ameliorate the void. Humanity’s noble quest to understand and comprehend existence is but one example.

I have only made the barest scratch at the content, meaning and ideas found in this work.  I went into A Passage to India expecting a great novel with a strong plot containing intriguing characters and important insights into people. I did find those elements in this book. I also found things that were much deeper and meaningful. These elements, so artistically and intensely expressed here, are only found in the most profound works of literature. Forster proves here that he was one of civilization’s all time great thinkers.

Liebster Recognition

Many thanks to Angie at Angels are Kids and Furkids for awarding me the Liebstar Blog Award! I am so flattered that she chose to recognize my Blog!

The award is given to bloggers with under 200 followers. These blogs are "the best kept secrets" out there. As some of the Blogs that I love do not seem to keep track of followers, I will interpret the rule to mean under appreciated and newer Blogs in general.

Winners, here are the rules to if you would like to pass this on:

1 - Thank the person who nominated you in a blog post.
2 - Nominate up to five other blogs.
3 - Let them know via comment on their blog.
4 - Post the award on your blog.

Here are my five picks!

At Home in the Kitchen   - A Great Food Blog with scrumptious pictures.

History by Suzy     - A Blog with a fascinating take on History.

Nobodyaknowitall  - A Blog about Classical literature and topical issues.

St. Oberose – A Blog about great literature.

Vanilla and Saffron – Another Great Food Blog that will make you hungry.

Please check these as well as Angie's Blog out. I enjoy them all and they are all worth the read.

Winners please do not feel like you have to participate. I know that not everyone follows other Blogs and even if one does not, sometimes it is difficult to choose!

The Frogs - Aristophanes

Aristophanes’s Frogs is one of the earliest examples of comedy known to Western Civilization. First presented in 405 BC, this ancient Athenian play lampoons many people and concepts.  Among Aristophanes’s targets was literature in the form of the Ancient Greek Theatre, along with the concept of literary criticism itself. The play is both hilarious and thought provoking.

Aristophanes presents the story of the God Dionysus’s, and his slave Xanthus’s, trip to Hades in order to bring back a great tragic playwright. This quest is motivated by the opinion that the quality of serious drama has declined in Athens. Arriving in Hades, a contest between the prodigious, now deceased dramatists Aeschylus and Euripides is exacerbated as the two great authors vie to be Dionysus’s choice to return to the land of the living. In the process, each proceeds to make a mockery and ridicule one another’s work. In the end Dionysus chooses Aeschylus to return with him.

I first read Frogs about ten years ago. Having been much less intellectually prepared at the time, I would estimate that I comprehended about fifty percent of the references made concerning subjects such as Greek theatre, mythology, politics, contemporary events, Athenian government, etc. The fact that I am more knowledgeable about these topics now, allowed me to grasp a great deal more during this go around. However, I found that using an online set of notes, plus a very accessible translation by Ian Johnston, really opened up the play for me.

Frogs, with its myriad and ancient allusions can be tough to appreciate. Before tackling this work I recommend first reading both Aeschylus and Euripides. In addition, a basic knowledge of ancient Geek mythology is indispensible. An understanding of the outlines of Ancient Greek history, with emphasis on Athenian Democracy as well as the Peloponnesian War, during which time Frogs was written, would be very helpful. Finally, for all but those who are experts in the subject matter, a set of notes on the work is extremely advantageous.

Frogs both illustrates as well as sets the standard for how great comedy fits into our world. The plays of Aristophanes are some of, and perhaps the, oldest known examples of the form. Thus, in a way, Aristophanes has been the teacher of comedy for all who have delved into the medium since.

In Frogs Aristophanes satirizes not just the God Dionysus and various Athenian politicians, generals, etc., but he mercilessly ridicules both Aeschylus and Euripides themselves. I emphasize the mockery of these two figures because these playwrights were not only revered in Aristophanes’s time, but today, over twenty five hundred years later, they are still looked upon as some of the greatest artists who ever lived. Their subjects and themes encompass many of the most important and serious issues that we humans face. Their presentations and styles are considered to be some of the finest manifestations of high art created in all of human history.

Yet, a short time after the death of these literary titans, Aristophanes creates fictional and clownish representations of the pair, who proceed to engage in a zany, petty, vicious, and hilarious debate. Each tragedian spends line after line mercilessly skewing their counterparts’ poetic style, use of language, plots, themes, etc. They even resort to parodying each other’s work. As if this is not enough, the literary antagonists take opportunities to take gibes at one another’s personal lives and hurl cheap insults. Imagine if a modern day comedy were to portray recently deceased celebrities in the afterlife acting this. The public outcry and indignation would be intense and swift!

To me, this is the point of sophisticated and thoughtful comedy and farce. Great humor exists to show, through hyperbole, exaggeration, and at times a little meanness, the short - comings and foibles in both ourselves, as well as the world at large. One gets the sense that Aristophanes had immense respect and admiration for these men and the gravitas underlying their works.  Yet despite, and perhaps because something is immensely serious, sometimes it pays to step back and see that there is a little bit of silliness in it. In the attempt to draw attention to this affectation, Aristophanes created fictional and ridiculous representations of these men.

It seems very unlikely that in reality Aeschylus and Euripides were in any way like the immature buffoons portrayed here. Aristophanes was likely counting on the fact that his audience knew that these were not really accurate representations. Instead, these caricatures allowed the great comic playwright to look at and to analyze their works from a wholly unique and different point of view. Having read both Aeschylus and Euripides, and standing with the consensus that both were masterful geniuses, I also recognize that the parody here strips their admittedly magnificent plays of some of their pretentions. This sounds contradictory, but it is just another way of seeing the world from various points of view. At least for a short time, divesting some of the seriousness from these great tragedies is stimulating and enlightening. This is what real comedy should be about.

One final thought,

Brekekekex koax koax

Brekekekex koax koax !   

Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr by Nancy Isenberg

In Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr , Nancy Isenberg, Professor of History at Louisiana State University, contends that she is the first historian to write a biography of America’s third vice president. She takes to task previous biographers as well as writers of fiction, who she argues, have distorted and maligned Burr’s character. Isenberg sets out to rehabilitate Burr’s reputation here. This is a well-written and thoroughly researched and engaging biography and should be of great interest to anyone interested in Revolutionary and post Revolutionary America or the history of government in general. It has much to commend it.

Burr was born in 1756 in New Jersey to a semi-prosperous family but was orphaned at a young age. He was educated at College of New Jersey in Princeton. He later became a military hero in the American War for Independence. After his service in the Continental Army, Burr became a successful attorney as well as a leading figure in New York State, and eventually national politics. Though some pushed him to be president, he emerged from the presidential election of 1800 as Thomas Jefferson’s Vice President. Amazingly, while serving in this position, he fought the famous duel that ended in the death of Alexander Hamilton. After being pushed out of office prior to the second Jefferson Administration, Burr spent several years endeavoring to establish conditions and an organization conducive for a private force to attack and conquer the Spanish Territories of Florida and Mexico, with an eye toward enlarging the young United States. As a result of these machinations, Burr was brought up on, what Isenberg argues, were trumped up charges for treason against the United States. Eventually Burr was acquitted of all crimes. Though politically ruined and hounded by creditors and political enemies for most of the remainder of his life, Burr was not personally broken, and he eventually settled down and continued to practice law and be socially accepted in New York State.  He died in 1836. For two hundred years biographers and others have vilified Bur as an immoral schemer, traitor and sexual deviant.

Isenberg makes a strong case that unsubstantiated character assassination not only destroyed Burr’s political career, but led to his demonization for two hundred years. As the practice of attacking leaders and other public figures, sometimes based upon inaccurate facts and false conspiracy theories, is ripe in the world today, I believe that we can learn important lessons from Burr’s story and from Isenberg’s chain of reasoning.

Isenberg defends Burr in several ways. First she readily acknowledges Burr’s imperfections but argues that few historical figures can be described as pure heroes or villains. She very perceptively writes that “History is not a bedtime story” and goes on to state that Burr was “no better and no worse” than the other founders of America. For example, Burr’s detractors often harp upon the fact that Burr was in debt and had a multitude of unpaid creditors. These debts were the result of poor speculative decisions. However, this tendency to accrue huge and difficult to pay liabilities was symptomatic of many of Burr’s generation, including such esteemed personages as Alexander Hamilton. Any student of Thomas Jefferson’s knows that he piled up more and more debt throughout life, in his case the result of lavish uncontrolled spending.

Another line of attack against Burr was that he was wildly and recklessly promiscuous. While he did have multiple affairs with women after the death of his wife, this pattern of behavior also was very common among Burr’s peers, including Hamilton, Jefferson as well as Benjamin Franklin.

For me, the most problematical event in Burr’s life was the killing of Alexander Hamilton in the famous duel at Weehawken, New Jersey. While difficult to fully justify Burr’s actions, there were strong extenuating circumstances involved. As Isenberg points out, and I believe to be true from other sources, Hamilton could be a verbally vicious man who slandered and attacked his political enemies both in writing and through gossip. After years of nasty personnel baiting, Burr had had enough and resorted to challenging Hamilton to combat. While extremely dangerous, dueling rarely resulted in the death of the participants. Though the author points out the are conflicting accounts of exactly what happened at Weehawken, she presents a strong argument that Hamilton’s death was more of a matter of chance rather then of malice.

I would surmise that the death of Hamilton would likely fall under our present day definition of manslaughter. While this incident certainly must be included in any summation of Burr’s life, I would further extrapolate Isenberg’s point that we need to make a fair comparison between Burr and his peers, by considering ugly incidents and character traits exhibited by the other men of the founding generation. For instance, Washington ordered multiple executions of both his own men as well as for loyalist and British adversaries, for minor offenses during the Revolutionary War. Washington, Jefferson and many other powerful men held large numbers of slaves during the same period. There are many other examples of founders behaving immorally. These flaws in others, in no way justify Burr’s actions. However if we do condemns Burr for Hamilton’s death, I think that such condemnation needs to be leveled for other, perhaps more severe offenses, committed by many cherished American icons at the time.

Conspiracy theories play an important part in past and present attacks upon Burr. After his tenure as vice president, Burr was involved in organizing and planning a “Filibuster”, or civilian invasion and conquest of what were then Spanish territories, presumably in conjunction with an American war against Spain. Isenberg’s book argues that Burr’s plans against Spain were twisted and distorted by hysterical enemies into a non- existent plot to formant succession of the western United States, as well as the overthrow of the Jefferson Administration by force. Supporting the contention that there was no truth to the accusation of treason, is the fact that although Burr was subjected to several trials arising out of these charges, he was eventually acquitted of all involvement with any crimes.

The claims revolving around Burr’s supposed seductive power and escapades also remind me of similar attacks leveled upon modern politicians and even American Presidents. Burr was and is often portrayed as a rakish womanizer. Isenberg argues that the fraction of stories that are accurate, in no way set Burr apart from many of his historically esteemed peers such as Hamilton and Jefferson. There was however another dimension to these attacks and insinuations. Both as a political leader and organizer, as well as a planner of a potential Filibuster, Burr seemed to attract many young men as dedicated followers. Isenberg speculates that Burr’s appeal may have been attributed to a strong and compelling personality, and surmises that he may have exuded a charisma not unlike Humphrey Bogart or Clint Eastwood. Burr’s enemies characterized this tendency to attract such followers in a sinister light, as some kind of homosexual erotic seduction.

Burr’s adversaries often portrayed Burr as having no real ideals, of taking whatever position benefited him at the time. Isenberg points out that the opposite was true. Politically, while a moderate, he was steadfast to his beliefs and loyal to his friends. Contrary to false allegations, several episodes, including the contentious Presidential election of 1800, found Burr acting both ethically and fairly.

 Furthermore, Isenberg presents Burr as an enlightened and progressive thinker. He was an advocate of the political philosophy of Utilitarianism. He championed and advanced the right of the public to directly elect representatives. He held and exorcised, what for the time, were radical feminist ideals, strongly advocating education for women as well as women’s rights in all areas. He educated his daughter beyond the level of most upper class men of the time. This was unprecedented for late eighteenth century America.

Isenberg makes a strong case that Burr has been terribly maligned in his time and throughout American history. I do tend to distrust the general consensus historically or contemporarily, when a person is either exalted or vilified.  I am leaning towards the opinion that Isenberg ‘s interpretation is fair and relatively accurate. As my knowledge of Burr’s life was sketchy before reading the book, however, I need to be exposed to contrary sources before being really certain. Isenberg points out that Ron Chernow’s Alexander Hamilton presents a much more negative take on Burr. That book is sitting on my shelf and I need to read it in order to really be more confident that I comprehend the issues.

I must conclude that Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr  lays out a case study as to how a prominent figure’s enemies can create a web of slander and inaccurate impressions aimed at damaging and ruining the victim. In our age where media outlets, as well as communication networks, such as cable television stations, newspapers, partisan websites, etc. very effectively pursue nearly identical tactics, this history book should be read as a cautionary tale.

My commentary comparing Nancy Isenberg’s “Fallen Founder” and Ron Chernow’s “Alexander Hamilton” can be found here.

Antony and Cleopatra by William Shakespeare

William Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra contains one of the most compelling character studies in all of literature. Amazingly, this can be said of several of the Bard’s plays. What sets Antony and Cleopatra apart is that this work contains not one, but two of these fantastically crafted personas, Antony and Cleopatra.

 A little clarification to start; my commentary here is restricted to Shakespeare’s play. Strangely, some sources seem to blur this fictional work with the real people and historical events that the play is based upon. Any resemblance to persons living or dead, may not be coincidental, but are essentially inaccurate! Some commentators seem also to confuse Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra with other very different versions of the pair that have been portrayed in movies and television programs that have been produced in the past hundred years or so. This version is a fiction, and it is Shakespeare’s fiction.

The story is relatively simple. Antony, one of Rome’s rulers, and Cleopatra the monarch of Egypt are lovers. They ultimately lead the losing side of a Roman Civil War. After several battles and personal tribulations, the armies of Octavius Caesar defeat their forces. In the end, both commit very nobly portrayed suicides.

Both Antony and Cleopatra are represented as multi-faceted, complex people. Shakespeare had a knack, when he concentrated on a character, of seeming to create real people. He also endows these creations with plentiful doses of enigma and ambiguity. That is why these are so many alternate interpretations of his works.

Since volumes can be written about this play and its protagonists, I will confine most of my musings here to Shakespeare’s sublime portrayal of Cleopatra, who to me, is just a little bit more interesting then Antony.

An initial reading of Antony and Cleopatra reveals some obvious points about the Queen of Egypt. She is promiscuous, manipulative, self centered, hysterical, theatrical and dishonest. These are all accurate descriptors of her personality. When it comes to Shakespeare however, things are rarely simple. These personality flaws only tell part of the story.

Cleopatra is an expert seducer and manipulator of powerful men. To some extent she has wrapped Julius Cesar, Pompey and finally, Mark Antony around her finger. At one point she brags about her capture of Antony. In several other sequences she plays emotional games with him. Cleopatra ‘s conquests are not innocent and love smitten school - boys, instead they are the most powerful, experienced and confident men in the world. When her side is totally defeated by Octavius, she even manages to enthrall one of Octavius’s lieutenants into aiding her! The impression is that this woman exudes an unmatched erotic and sensual influence over men. She is the epitome of erogenous power. Many of the males soldiers and politicians on the outside of her affections looking in, describe her, using words such as “strumpet” and “whore.”

Shakespeare gives us a glimpse of another angle however. Many scenes involving Cleopatra’s intrigues are interposed with other scenes exemplifying the actions of the Roman rulers and soldiers. The Roman leadership consisting of Octavius, Mark Antony and other general/politicians are constantly using their expertise and skill in making political mischief and war. These conflicts are fueled by an insatiable petty lust for power. At one point Shakespeare seems to compare the Roman leaders to pirates. These men exert enormous and malevolent power.

With this contrast, Shakespeare seems to be putting Cleopatra's seductions and machinations in a little different light. While in no way a virtuous person, Cleopatra is using her erotic influences, in competition with men who wield vast military and political power. The Roman leadership and military’s way is to kill, rob and enslaving people over vast segments of the world. This is a world of not just hardball maneuvers; it is a world of blood –sport. The Queen of Egypt is using her talents to cope and compete, in a less brutal way as compared to the Roman powers, in a very tough and nasty world. She is startlingly effective in doing so.

The question that inevitably arises is, does Cleopatra love Antony? This is difficult to say since every word uttered by the queen is of questionable verity. She certainly does not experience a love of the healthy and balanced type. At one point she even seems to take several steps in the direction of betraying Antony to Octavius. Of course this is after Antony has taken more then a few steps toward betraying Cleopatra, by marrying and settling down of with Octavia, who is Octavius’s sister, for political reasons. I do surmise however, that Cleopatra’s consistent protestations of love and adoration for Antony, even at the moment of her own death, do point to a dysfunctional, unstable, and odd kind of love. In Cleopatra’s world, love, even if in some ways genuine, is close enough to being a tool, that it does not completely preclude the possibility of betrayal.

Finally, Cleopatra’s death is grand and dignified. Prior to her suicide, after Antony’s death, she seems certainly willing to continue to “play the game” to her advantage. When it becomes clear that Octavius will not succumb to her charms, and that enormous degradation lies ahead for her, killing oneself, is the clearly only alternative for a person such as she is. Throughout the play, her lines are a wonder to read, as they express the full range of her often theatrically expressed emotions. The language spoken by her at the end is some of the most eloquent and moving in all of Shakespeare’s works. It illustrates her majesty as well as her ultimate spiritual connection with Antony.

Does all this mean that Shakespeare was a Feminist? The portrayal of a woman who uses seduction to advance in the world, is in some ways the antitheses of Feminine ideology. In addition the concept of Feminism did not exist in Shakespeare’s time. However, at the very least, in my opinion, there is sympathy expressed here for the position and predicaments that women have found themselves in throughout history. I would describe these ideas as being “proto –feminist”.

The somewhat sympathetic portrayal of Cleopatra aside, the template of the emotionally manipulative and erotically irresistible woman, shaped in this play, has influenced writers down through the centuries. Many have imitated, but have never matched this magnificent portrayal of such a person.  William Shakespeare, created in Cleopatra is an enormous persona of unmatched gravitas and complexity.

Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence by David Benatar

This is a book that exudes controversy! In Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, David Benatar, who is a professor of philosophy at University of Cape Town, argues that it is morally wrong to have children, and that the best outcome for the human race is extinction sooner, rather then later.

Though an Antinatalist, Benatar is a neither misanthrope nor a hater of people. His goals actually seem altruistic, as he ultimately wants to reduce human suffering. His argument is laid out logically and systematically. The author argues that an un–conceived, potential human, if conceived, will undoubtedly experience a life that contains suffering. While the new person is also likely to experience pleasure and joy, potential parents have no obligation to create a person. Nor are they morally obligated to generate happiness for someone that does not yet exist. People do have an obligation not to create suffering. When conceiving a child, parents condemn their offspring to a lifetime of pain. All the contentment in the world, which the parents have no obligation to create, cannot compensate for the fact that the parents produced a sentient creature that will now experience suffering. In a nutshell, one has no ethical duty to create people, even if they will sometimes be happy. There does exist an ethical obligation not to bring a person into the world that will experience pain. Even if a one were assured that their offspring was to have the best possible life, the offspring would experience some suffering, which is amoral to create. Furthermore the only proper course for the human race to pursue, is to allow itself to become extinct in lieu of generating more suffering beings.

Benatar adds supplementary arguments to round out his worldview. He contends that most human lives are very bad. Even the lucky few have it worse then most would admit. Furthermore, when parents conceive a child, Benatar points out that they are at best playing a kind of Russian- Roulette. There is a distinct possibility that the child, for a million possible reasons, may have a horrendously bad life. It cannot be the right thing to do, to bring a person onto person into the world, and take this horrible chance without the consent of that person.

Benatar goes out of his way to point out that the above is not necessarily true for people that already exist. Once a person has a stake in this world, their interests and potentialities often make their lives worth continuing. Though he argues that societies are too loath to accept suicide for those who are condemned to a life of misery, he does not advocate the elimination of those who already exist. In other words, once one is actually in the game, it is usually best to play it out.

This is indeed a radical belief system! I do not generally agree with Benatar’s ultimate conclusions. I will not bother to elucidate my arguments as I suspect that most people will easily raise multiple objections on their own. A Google search yields a variety of critiques of Benatar’s philosophies, many reasoned and thoughtful, others just angry rants against the author. I ask myself, is the anger and condemnation that Benatar elicits justified?

My objections to Benatar’s hypotheses got me to thinking. If I study a philosophical work and I disagree with its conclusions, does that mean that I have wasted my time? Does this mean that the opinions have no value to me? Of course not!

When I think of some of the philosophies and viewpoints that I have explored in the past, Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, to name just a few, I disagree with both the ultimate conclusions as well as many of the lesser arguments that most of these thinkers present. My disagreement in no way diminishes the fact that these philosophers present a worldview that is creative, brilliant, thought provoking and culturally significant.  Often, along the way to their ultimate points, these writers expound multiple arguments, some of which either I do agree with, or at least help me glimpse an alternate view of the world. This indeed, is part of what serious reading and thinking is about. Of course there is plenty of rubbish with no value out there, but such drivel is relatively easy to identify .

While I am not comparing Benatar to the great philosophical minds in human history, his cogitations are creative, reasoned, and occasionally brilliant. He takes the reader into much uncharted territory with some very audacious arguments. He raises all sorts of valid ethical questions. He tries, at times with success, to get at the often - paradoxical questions revolving around the existence of sentient beings. Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence is brimming with such ruminations. My summery above, barely scratches the surface.

In additional, though I suspect the Benatar would disagree, like many works of philosophy that I have encountered, various points expounded in this book fall more into the category of “this is an interesting alternate way of looking at the world”, as opposed to “this is incorrect”. For example, Benatar’s assertion that there is more “bad” then “good” in even the best human life. This is not the way that I usually look at human existence, but this conclusion is really just an expression of a different perspective, not an empirical assertion of fact. Sometimes it is intellectually healthy and stimulating to be presented with such alternate viewpoints.

Benatar certainly does not deserve the scorn that some have heaped upon him. He is not hateful as some reviews suggest, unless one considers that he genuinely seems to hate suffering. I have read and heard that as of late, his ideas seem to getting quite a bit of attention. He has strong supporters (many have expressed themselves in Amazon Reviews pages). For the adventurous and open- minded reader, who likes to think and reflect about issues involving existence and humanity, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence is well worth a try.