Fitzgerald And Class

Wish I could do some of that

Been doing a lot of not practicing to get this good at parkour.

Absence of celebration

When I was in elementary school, my dad always took me to get some ice cream, when it vacation started, because of my good grades. But it stopped with the beginning of middle school. Ever since, my birthdays have been celebrated only with my family, only was celebrated my girlfriend with me in private. I also had this graduation supper, where I got to be but a mere guest. I know it's not bad and I could be very grateful for this and I guess this all's just 'coz my ego can grow very rapidly but still, sometimes I really want to be celebrated. Today, like an hour ago, I finished the revision of my book. It's not in the phase of getting published or anything, though I count it as a huge step. But I'm sitting in my room, alone, typing this entry. When I finished the first manuscript (a very raw one) i got to go on a walk alone in the park.

You know, I'm not trying to get your empathy. I don't really need that. It just hit me, that I can celebrate alone. And so I will. I've had enough of dreaming of this. You know, I'm a believer, so I wouldn't say, that it's my achievement, ergo I'll mostly celebrate my heavenly Father. He always amazes me. Just like with this.

Randomness rules!

Thanks for making my favorite video

Today I made your favorite video. You’re welcome.

Breaking the Ice

For about half a year I've been stuck. I haven't written a single word worth mentioning. And that's a problem if you're trying to write something. I had a conflict that I had to rewrite before the climax of my story and nothing worked. I resolved I would not progress with he whole novel as long as this problem is not solved and today, with pride I say, I have solved it. It's possibly the sweetest, neatest, greatest, most dynamic, most intense part of the whole thing.

But why couldn't I write it? I've been in a bittersweet relationship with the Creator of everything. Last time in church, the scripture said that what the Lord requires of me is:

to try to live in love,

to live according to His laws,

and to be humble toward Him.

None of the above has been fulfilled lately. But He reached down to me and, so openly, he set the rules for me. I was finally told exactly where I'm lacking. Everywhere, apparently. But it's good, it's really the best. I finally know that I should do these three. And I'm so thankful! Knowing this is salvation. I'm saved... once more. This is the biggest thing of my life and now that it's done--not for the first time, sadly--life can/must move on for me. Move forward ;)

I read Bram Stoker's Dracula right after changing the course of my studies. From a fine university I went to another brilliant one. Everything around me seemed to take new shape and I had to learn new customs. In this phase, when my brain was forced to let fresh things pass, I found myself absorbed in this piece of literature, which I had been meaning to read for quite some time then. And so it was, I read it and found it interesting and original. On the contrary, I felt it wasn't a perfect match for me, since it was set in and meant to be understood in another era.

Time passed and I concealed my Dracula experience in the back of my head. This period, however, came to an end, when, yesterday night, I stumbled upon Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula (1992), and I couldn't resist, so I watched it.

The cast is near perfect, Keanu Reeves being probably the only odd one out, since he looked way too young and inexperienced to take on the role of Jonathan Harker. But all in all, Gary Oldman (Dracula), Winona Ryder (Mina Harker) and Anthony Hopkins (van Helsing), acted so stupendously, that left me breathless at certain points of the film. The directing was also terrific--of course, what else could we anticipate seeing Coppola's name on the credit roll.

Before saying anything I must remark, that I'm a huge supporter of book adaptations, so I had a very positive attitude towards the movie beforehand. At the very end of the film, it sadly turned into bitter disappointment. But remember, I write this, having established, that it was almost perfectly made.

Dracula's original story operates with stereotypical characters and countless elements brought in from superstition--not strictly, just in comparison with contemporary ways. The story has its twists and mysteries but those aren't as shocking and sudden as it would be expected from a current book. It begins with a solicitor, Harker's visit at castle Dracula and an encounter with the monster, Dracula. From here the count goes to London, seeking new lands to hunt humans. Harker's fiance, Mina is staying at her friend's place, at the same time. This friend, Lucy, has a habit of sleepwalking. When Dracula arrives to England, she, conveniently, happens to be the easiest target. The count feeds on her regularly, killing her little by little, until it gets too suspicious and Lucy's noble admirers, joined by professor Abraham van Helsing, unite to discover what torments the woman. They come to a right conclusion eventually but then it's too late and Lucy's transformed into a hellish creature, so they are forced to kill her, in order to grant her eternal rest and avoidance of godly condemnation. The fellowship decides to hunt the original vampire down and through Mina they get acquinted with Harker, who just returned, having scarcely survived his stay at the count's castle but is now resolute to bring down destruction upon the demonic creature. Dracula, moving on from Lucy, also turns Mina into a vampire, or comes really close to it, and then the men (and Mina) enter into a tight chase him and kill him.

In Stoker's novel, Dracula is a very instinct-driven killer. He only seeks base things and is not a bit a human. We don't get to see his backstory’s smaller details, only that he used to be an important and  extraordinary man, then, at some point, he attended the Scholomance and has been like this ever since, only growing greater in his abilities. The only thing he engages in, apart from killing and turning people into vampires, is experimenting with ways to become more efficient at his other pursuit. Stoker wrote him as someone, who is led by evil and nothing else.

Dracula has one equal: van Helsing, who is almost identical to him, with the crucial difference of being motivated by good--by christian ideas in this story, mixed with superstition.

The movie tried to remain true to the source material in regards of the plot and interfered where intellectually a renovation seemed due. For example Coppola kept the means, by which the mourners of Lucy hunted the count but fundamentally changed the motives of Dracula. He tried to give sense to the character and so came up with the idea, that it would be of bigger service to the plot if the count was led by romantic feelings. It is supposed to give depth and seriousness to the drama. However, it works only if we fail to understand Stoker's original intents or if we are reluctant.

In the movie the count is fueled by grief and longing, after his dead wife, tragically killed hundreds of years ago. This event is where the movie’s Dracula experiences his extreme disappointment in the church and turns to other sources. The director takes it even further: Mina is somehow the reincarnation of Dracula's dead wife--this is very explicit, since she has actual memories from her past life. They both recognize each other and are gravitated to each other, even so, love each other honestly.

The movie has another important aspect: All of the good characters are humanized. The screenwriter threw away the naive figures and applied contemporary materialist tools to repaint them.

Coppola took the good characters and made them as bad as any other man and took the evil one and made him as good as any other. But what are the vampire hunters without a high ground? Dracula, in the other hand, has a morose reason behind all his evil-doings and is thus legitimized, made the victim of the story. 

Stoker painted a picture, that was clearly white and black and then came Coppola, saying 'Hey dude, life's more complicated, than that'. Of course life is more complicated, than that but Stoker had an entirely different meaning. In his story: There is a transcendent world, there are transcendent values. In Coppola's vision, what we get is very grounded: we all are the same (not equal but identical!), regardless from the appearances, and the idea that everyone faces something after they're dead is as old as Stoker's vampire, and just as much an entertaining element of folklore but nothing more.

The movie denied the concept of good and bad. It rationalized that if we were Dracula, we'd probably end up doing things that could be deemed wrong, yet we would be as valiant as humans ever were. This is not necessarily killing or whatnot but we wouldn't be perfect if our lives weren't perfect. Dracula was demonic but with a certain justification. He had to be killed, of course, but it was tragic, in contrast with Stoker's ending of the story, where it was a relief.

Originally I liked Dracula's story because everything the characters did, even when they killed the abominations created by the count, or the count himself, served other purposes, than to increase the spectacle of the story. The hunters freed souls and granted them such things, that were impossible for the victims to attain on earth any more but existed nonetheless. Stoker believed in morals that aren't based solely on practicality but on a grand concept, that there exists the metaphysical and good above the world we know--that there exists God.

My Literal Heart

I envy one particular quality in sportsmen: their heart. I said this to quite a few people I know. It's ringing pretty well and it's actually true.

Today I was playing soccer with my friends. I'm a defender, I always am. We've been playing for about an hour and I failed to tackle the opponent, who had the ball. He shot but our goalie implemented a brilliant save. In the moment of the save, something happened in me. In my literal heart. It felt as though my chest was too small for it and all the blood in the world wouldn't be enough, flowing in my body. With my heart pounding madly, I stopped on the field. I wanted to catch my breath, I thought this sensation would pass but it seemed to be increasing. The one thing in my head was: I'm gonna die right now. I began coughing, fighting for air and I could stay on my feet but I could hardly move, let alone sprint from end of the field to the other. I walked off and sat down and looked at the ground, which was supposed to be green but it was gray. The players, the walls, the trees--really everything was gray. I drank and rested and the world's colors slowly crawled back. My heart was a lot more peaceful. I lay down to the ground and looked up at the sky. It was blue all right but I saw countless little dots, rushing nowhere but with great speed.

While down there, I contemplated my miserable state. Why do I have to be like this?! I didn't know whether it was something serious or something that just frightened me because it hasn't happened before. But I thought it was truly the most unfair thing in existence. Not because I'm a totally righteous person or I deserve to live. The reason for this was that I thought I haven't done my share. Not just the things that can make me happy in life but the part that I haven't walked to the end of the paths of my missions. I haven't done everything for the girl I love; I haven't put myself to service of the church; I haven't published anything; and countless other things. It would have been a very bitter death but I didn't die. My heart eventually calmed down, I'm much better now. Momentarily, rather ironically, I envy the very literal hearts of sportsmen the most.

I've been wondering what meaning this event may convey--if any... Maybe not many things just this: my life is not in my hands but in God's hands. And this, also, is very literally perceived. And I'm thankful that I'm alive and thankful for everything.

Since 1974

He stretched his arms to the crystalline, radiant sky. “I know myself,” he cried, “but that is all — “

F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Side of Paradise (via introspectivepoet)

EVERYONE NEEDS THIS ON THEIR BLOG.

An Argument for God - The Genuine Nature of Christianity

This post is a product of a heated conversation I’ve had very recently. The argument I will present is in no way a proof, rather a compelling line of reasoning, supporting the legitimacy of the Christian faith.

First of all, religious beliefs have been present since the naissance of our race, as evident from numerous archeological findings of ritual items. Although primitive iterations of different faiths can be connected to the lack of scientific understanding. For example it could seem logical for groups of humans to praise the sun, as they had no distant idea of its inner workings, and as something beyond their comprehension, yet observably powerful, it appeared to be an entity far above them, ergo a god of sorts. Similar patterns can be found in countless natural religions, as usually their objects are things or persons of immense influence and/or outside the intellectual and physical grasp of their subjects. This mode of religious faith (or fear) is thus very natural, almost inherent to the unknowing masses of the distant past. Opposite to this, the Judeo-Christian tradition had an original birth, meaning it was not connected to observable objects, rather an entity outside of the physical and intellectual realms, through revelation through a long line of prophets and inspired people. In comparison the natural religions had an understandable reason to be invented because their objects were things overpowering humans, whereas Christianity’s roots came from a place outside of the boundaries of rationality, ergo, as far as religions are concerned, the birth of Christianity is genuine.

Secondly, in the stratum of religions from revelation, there is a great amount of corruption and an even greater amount of dubious sources. Many faiths come from the preaching of inspired individuals, who have claimed to have some supernatural knowledge, and usually these persons even had miraculous happenings in their close proximity. Whenever one such individual could amass a cult, a new religion was born and very often their teachings remained the core of their religion ever after. Now this is problematic because the only convincing power of these faiths is that of their missionary’s, the original prophet (or anyone called by any name, serving as such) is completely at the mercy of the skills of the coming teachers and preachers of given religion. Even more severely so, when history discredits the original bringers of revelation. Probably the most outstanding example of this is the case of Mohammad, the prophet of Islam. First, his first amanuensis left him. It is extremely alarming, when the person, who writes down the words of a prophet reports that he lost his faith in the prophet’s revelation’s genuineness. Second, when the prophet’s teachings became self-contradictory, evidently along the lines of personal interest, a large group of people left the prophet. Third, the prophet had to discard parts of his teachings, attributing it to deception from Satan, when its contents found no popular acceptance. Mohammad thus seems like a hardly credible source. Of course his revelations are very compelling to many people, who choose to overlook all these three discrediting instances. The Bible, at the same time, has been created in the span of thousands of years, written by many dozens of inspired people. The revelation, to be so spread out, is quite unique in this manner, unlike any other out there. It can be thus said that, in comparison, Christianity’s revelation -- again, as far as religions from revelations go -- is genuine.

Thirdly, the Judeo-Christian revelation claims to have been proven and fulfilled. Like religions in a large percentage, Christianity also operates with many prophecies. Yet, it is quite exquisite in that its prophecies have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ(1). This is some two thousand years worth of texts, which have been completed in a real persons life and death and his message. Now at this point, to accept the above sentence, it requires faith, however, the fact that the Judeo-Christian tradition counts Jesus Christ as fulfillment to its prophecies and expectations is very unique and can be counted as a genuine basis of faith.

And lastly, the inspiration behind the text is very credible. Most likely in connection with the long time span, the revelation of the Bible doesn’t follow lines of interest. Quite the contrary, often great historical influences were opposed by actual revelations and sacred guidance. Even socio-economic contexts were ignored or opposed time and time again, which again, proves that the revelations are genuine. Now whether or not to believe them still can be a question but not whether or not the claims are genuine.

Note: I’m aware of the possibility my above argumentation might be plagiaristic but as this is not published as a scholarly work I feel I don’t need to go source-hunting. Originally the basic concepts presented here are used in a novella I’m still trying to write and I put it out here in this shape and form because I’ve been deeply inspired by a personal conversation (see preface).

(1) Jesus is, historically, better recorded than Julius Caesar, so his earthly existence can be regarded as historical fact (as long as one accepts such things, since they can sometimes seem questionable), his metaphysical significance and the truth of his message is what is usually argued.