Wordsmithing and Wizardry
Send an email to The Jester-in-Exile!
There are a number of films and miniseries adapted from classic books of which I've thought to be in keeping with the spirit brought to life by the novelists, even if they had not been in keeping with the letter of the text. You know, like the J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy adapted by Peter Jackson, Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park adapted by Steven Spielberg, James Clavell's Shogun adapted by Jerry London, and Kazuo Ishiguro's The Remains of the Day adapted by James Ivory.
I've been thinking of one in particular: The Age of Innocence, from Edith Wharton's novel, adapted for film by Martin Scorsese. Specifically, I'm thinking of a word that for some reason when I hear or read it always brings the film to mind -- "enchante".
See, more than just being a word used as a social politeness, it gives me this sense a person having had a spell cast on, as if the person met had such a powerful presence that one is quite rightly instantly taken.
I could say the same over some stuff I've been reading.
Both Rom and Butch had powerful posts on FilipinoVoices.com written about the vicious slaying of ten people (just now, I saw the news that the eleventh victim brought to Saint James Hospital and was in critical condition has just died) in the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation branch in the Light Industry and Science Park, Brgy. Diezmo, Cabuyao, Laguna. Butch wrote A Season of Violence and Death, while Rom wrote What Justice? (Aside: I used to live and work and ride in the area, so it is particularly and personally chilling.)
What I don't quite agree with, however, is Butch's idea that the reinstatement of capital punishment could very well serve as a deterrent to crime. Although I will defer to his knowledge and mastery of the law, I will rather argue that it is not the threat of punishment that will deter such crimes; instead, the deterrent will be the guarantee that crimes will be punished; knowing that he will eventually be caught, tried, and convicted, a would-be criminal would think twice about committing a crime. See, I am convinced that no matter how harsh a punishment will be, if there is a great possibility that such a punishment will never be executed as the felon could evade justice with impunity, the harsh punishment could not serve as a deterrent.
See, when it comes to capital punishment as a deterrent to crime, I'm an agnostic. To my way of thinking, the jury is still out on whether or not it does deter crime. Unless and until criminals are effectively hunted down and brought before the bar of justice, such viciousness will continue. To Butch's statement that "I’m certain the RCBC murderers took some cold, cruel comfort, while they were pulling the triggers on their victims, from the knowledge that, however heinous their crimes, they would never be lawfully executed by the State", I am more inclined rephrase his last with "they would never be caught by the State".
However, I am not in agreement with those who deride the methods of the cops who shot at and were killed by the murderous robbers Butch mentioned in connection with the Dy slay. The robbers had shot the trader and shot at the cops; deadly force would be the correct response to these who had demonstrated being armed, dangerous, and without compunction.
Heck, I wish those who are out to exact vengeance from these two bands of bandits good luck and good hunting.
I found this pair of mutually exclusive perspectives by Benj and Rom to be far more thought-provoking than many discussions I've had with committed theists and atheists: Benj wrote The Arrogance of Faith while Rom wrote The Other Gods. Each of them, taken separately, speak of the choice to either believe or disbelieve in the existence of a Supreme Being.
Without arguing for either side -- I'm certain that both bloggers already have some idea of where I stand in this age-old debate -- I think it is probably difficult for Rom or Benj's perspective to be at least tolerated by the vast majority of our countrymen. It probably is very difficult to hold a system of belief come by via critical thinking in a country where blind obedience to the tenets of one's religion is that which is more or less a norm.
On the other hand, it seems to me that this norm is being challenged little by little, in little ways that could very well be cracks in the dike. Apparently, despite the hemming and hawing of the Church, more and more folks are getting into artificial methods of birth control (which leads one to wonder why the government has not yet followed Flavier's example and just went ahead and did the State's job instead of kowtowing to the Church). Likewise, the LGBT community has begun to exercise their right for their dissent to be heard, by openly protesting the Church's disapproval of the lives they lead.
If I was going to be facetious, I suppose I'd say that this challenge is brought about by the arrant hypocrisy of princes of the Church, as exemplified by their condemnation of Gawad Kalinga's accepting pharmaceutical companies' donations and building homes and livelihoods from these, while accepting donations from PAGCOR, all the while knowing that gambling is a vice.
I think I'll go ahead and reread Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, that chapter where Monsignor Bienvenu and the dying statesman G___ speak for the first and last time.
In his column Separate Opinion, it seems to me that retired Supreme Court Justice Isagani Cruz is becoming increasingly strident in his demand for accountability. Here are excerpts from his column Government by the governed:Many years ago, in a public function of the Supreme Court, I delivered a speech entitled “The Government by the Governed” where I said that our government was being run not by the public officials themselves but by the people they were governing. I said it was we ourselves, the sovereign people as the Constitution described us, who were the real rulers of our country through the men and women we had elected and the citizens they had appointed.
It was not an original thought, of course. But I thought it needed re-telling as a lesson in humility—and democracy.
Looking back, however, I find I was too idealistic and confidently naïve. Considering the sad state of our country today, I feel that as its presumed governors, we are unworthy of our crucial task in the strengthening of our Republic.
We have failed to assert the constitutional principle that “sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.” We have become not the source but the victims of government authority—and tyranny—because we have not summoned the resolve to be the righteous rulers instead of the regimented ruled.
We must recover our surrendered primacy to the false leaders who have sullied and betrayed it. We must reclaim the mandate we entrusted to them lest they continue to feed their insatiable lust for power and pelf. We must act now—after the meekness of the dormant centuries—to win back at last our inherent right to shape our own destiny for the good of the greater number and not the privileged few.
This is a responsibility we must discharge now with the boldness we have long deferred. It is like a time bomb that must be defused before it inevitably explodes and destroys us all. We must enforce our sovereign will against the scoundrels who have bled our country dry and wasted. This is a duty that can no longer wait to be performed.
It's almost as if Justice Cruz is calling for drastic measures.
Hmmmm. Well, I am not sure if I'd mind so much.
(Aside: wow. Now who says that idealism is the sole province of the young?)
Speaking of youth, via a Benj's tweet, I was able to visit Gian Dapul's blog Militant Indifference (if you don't know who he is, he's the person who won the English Speaking Union's contest with a speech entitled "Fish Mucus and Foot Fungus" -- it's on YouTube, watch it). He has this post ego trip, where he says:You see, this is the problem with getting media and internet attention. People say lots of good stuff about you and they expect you to live up to their expectations. Everyone goes “I hope this kid becomes the Biochemist” or “I hope he continues to inspire” or “I hope he doesn’t leave the Philippines.” Crap.
True enough, people. Give the kid kudos for the win, then let him live his life as he chooses. It's his life. He may be a public figure now because of his win, but only he has the right to choose what to do with his life; be inspired by him or damn him as you please -- that's your prerogative, but his life is for his to make of it.
(Of course, I'm not-quite-secretly hoping that Gian won't turn out to be "the next Patricia Evangelista"... the horror the horror the horror.)
Nick (who wrote an excellent post on the importance of debate, discussion, and dissent) has been making asides on Twitter over my attempts to write short posts. Gaaad -- I know, I know, asa pa, di ba. Even my recent post over at FilipinoVoices.com (where I talk about cyberspace strategies for 2010 spinmeisters) is no example of conciseness. Bleh.
So I'm logging off now and ending post one before I find something else to write about.
Later, all.
(See you tomorrow, Makati. Ewwww.)
Want to keep The Journal of The Jester-in-Exile running? Why not leave some spare change?
