One thing that you should know about me as an atheist, I don't engage in religious debates. Believe me, I grew up as a Jehovah's Witness, I may have disagreed with most of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's beliefs and practices, getting baptized into the denomination was not the smartest decision to make knowing that I disagreed with so much of their worldview, but hey, at least I had exposure to it. Jehovah's Witnesses don't care what the householders, whose homes that they visit have to say. In their eyes, they have " the truth", you are being deceived by Satan and if you do not become a baptized Jehovah's Witness and engage in the preaching work and unquestioningly follow the teachings of the Governing Body, if you are alive when Yahweh decides it's time to initiate the Battle of Armageddon, you are doing to be murdered by Jesus and the Heavenly Army and miss out on the chance to live on an earthly paradise.
LDS Church missionaries ( Orthodox Mormons) also don't care what objection you have to the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, if you do not become a baptized Latter-day Saint, engage in Temple work, share the restored gospel with others, marry in the Temple and do whatever the Prophet ( LDS Church President) requires of you, guess what, you aren't going to make it into the Celestial Kingdom. Now, as an ex-Jehovah's Witness and an ex-Orthodox Mormon, I am always polite to any JW proselytizers and LDS Church missionaries who come to my door. Granted, I tell them that I was one of them and that I have no interest in returning to the denomination and do not wish to discuss my former beliefs or my atheism with them. Usually, they are kind and polite enough to leave it that and go on to the next home. I would never slam the door in their faces because I know what that is like. I wasn't an LDS Church missionary, but when I was still a member of the Church, I did know a young African-American Mormon woman whose sister and her sister's friend went on a mission for the Church and these two girls were questioned by potential investigators as to why any black person would want to be a Mormon, considered the past racist beliefs and practices of the LDS Church.
I was questioned on this very same thing. I am half African-American and half-Jewish. I chose to become an Orthodox Mormon because I wanted to. Yes, eventually I came to disagree with a lot of things, but I don't regret having been a member of the LDS Church despite any disagreements, I had exposure to another culture.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Live from Sheyboygan, WI added me to their Google page and my commentary
"Live from Sheyboygan, WI "
Christian-Talk-News-Opinion,
Sheyboygan Wisconsin
hosted by John and Dwight
News, opinions, interviews, discussions
Everything but Religion
Slogan: What do you think?
I don't know if John and Dwight who host LFSWI are atheists are not. I will say this, if they are fundamentalist Christians, I will not debate them on religious matters. I REFUSE outright to engage in religious debates. For all the comments, between Christians, Muslims, atheists and whomever else that I have seen on the Internet over the years, debating is not worth it. I understand why atheists feel the need to debate religious people, although usually it doesn't do any good. You see, if an atheist is going to debate religious people, you should do it with the goal of getting them to think about what you have said, get them to think about their beliefs , why they believe what they believe and how those beliefs effect others, you really should not go outright " Jehovah's Witness" or " Latter-day Saint" on religious persons by trying to convert them to atheism.
Christian-Talk-News-Opinion,
Sheyboygan Wisconsin
hosted by John and Dwight
News, opinions, interviews, discussions
Everything but Religion
Slogan: What do you think?
I don't know if John and Dwight who host LFSWI are atheists are not. I will say this, if they are fundamentalist Christians, I will not debate them on religious matters. I REFUSE outright to engage in religious debates. For all the comments, between Christians, Muslims, atheists and whomever else that I have seen on the Internet over the years, debating is not worth it. I understand why atheists feel the need to debate religious people, although usually it doesn't do any good. You see, if an atheist is going to debate religious people, you should do it with the goal of getting them to think about what you have said, get them to think about their beliefs , why they believe what they believe and how those beliefs effect others, you really should not go outright " Jehovah's Witness" or " Latter-day Saint" on religious persons by trying to convert them to atheism.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Annoying Billy Graham ad... this one at least had cute guy
Boldy Proclaim,
" I Am A Christian".
Billy Graham
Evangelistic Association
ALWAYS Good News.
To proclaim your faith,
Click Here
The same annoying ad from Billy Graham's website. As I said, they never have any "good new" to report. It's always news about how to shove your religion down the throats of uninterested persons and acting like self-righteous, bigoted jerk because of your religious views. This ad at least had a sexy Latino or maybe Filipino man featured prominently on it. He was hot as hell. This was worth seeing.
" I Am A Christian".
Billy Graham
Evangelistic Association
ALWAYS Good News.
To proclaim your faith,
Click Here
The same annoying ad from Billy Graham's website. As I said, they never have any "good new" to report. It's always news about how to shove your religion down the throats of uninterested persons and acting like self-righteous, bigoted jerk because of your religious views. This ad at least had a sexy Latino or maybe Filipino man featured prominently on it. He was hot as hell. This was worth seeing.
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
A Michigan ad on same-sex marriage and a commentary by me
Tell Gov. Snyder:
Stop using taxpayer money to oppose marriage equality
Sign the Petition
Paid for by Mark Schauer for Governor PO Box 100, Battle Creek, MI, 49016
Here is a Michigan ad that a friend told me about. I think that's sick that Gov. Snyder uses to taxpayer dollars to deny same-sex couples the right to legally marry. I'm a monogamous, heterosexual married woman and I do not, in any way consider myself superior to same-sex couples, unmarried couples or polyamorous couples. I don't think that I deserve marriage rights more than same-sex couples. I'm so sick and tired of religious fundamentalists, social and political conservatives acting as if they speak for me as a heterosexual woman. They don't.
I just read an article about Chick-Fil-A on AtheistNexus.org and how this restaurant with religious motivations uses it's money to fund homophobic organizations that want to deny same-sex couples the legal right to marry. I am an atheist who is formerly religious. I don't agree with religiously-based definitions of marriage. Civil governments do not and should not give recognition to religiously-based marriages. The civil government should of course let religious groups provide " holy matrimonial" services for their members, but they should not recognize religiously-based marriages, they should only recognize civil marriages. That's part of the separation of church and state. Some religious institutions choose to and want to marry same-sex couples in a service of "holy matrimony" and that is their choice. Again, why do religious fundamentalists care so much about civil marriages. You are NOT supposed to care about "worldly" affairs. You are SUPPOSED to be in the world, but not of the world. You know, religious organizations claim to be all about "family values" and most of them are lying. For instance, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Amish claim to be all about "family", well in the eyes of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and the Amish communes, family are only the people who hold to the same religious beliefs and practices that you do. If they do not hold the same religious beliefs and practices that you do, they are not your family and they are not your friends. Most JW's and Amish persons as individuals are good people, even if they hold some very wrong beliefs about the world. The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Amish denominations are filled with a lot of moral corruption. On "LGBT News Weekly" a long time ago, I read a comment from a homophobic JW about how Kingdom Hall's would "never" marry same-sex couples. I think it would be nice if LGBT people were accepted as fully equal members of the JW's and were allowed to marry in Kingdom Halls, maybe someday they will, I'm not going to hold my breath though. I think it would be nice if Kingdom Halls would marry same-sex couples, they don't have to, they don't have to allow LGBT persons as members either, it would be nice of them; either way, it still doesn't change the fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses are a homophobic, transphobic and bigoted religious institution.
It's okay to treat apostates, LGBT people, women and non-members of your religious group like dirt because that is the right thing to do and we all know that shunning people and being a bigot is the Christian thing to do. Apparently, this is how Jesus would have behaved. Well, the Biblical Jesus did compare a Gentile woman to a dog, back then that was the equivalent of a racial slur. The views and behavior of Fundamentalist Muslims, fundamentalists Buddhists, fundamentalist Hindus, fundamentalist Evangelicals, fundamentalist Pentecostals, fundamentalist Born-Again Christians, Southern Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Orthodox Mormons, Fundamentalist Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists, Church of God, Church of Christ, Assemblies of God, the Church of God in Christ, African Methodist Episcopal, the Greek Orthodox Church, the fundamentalist Mennonites, fundamentalist Roman Catholicism, fundamentalist Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, the Amish etc., are one of the reasons why I have abandoned organized religion. I largely don't believe in a god or an afterlife due to the lack of variable evidence or moral reasoning for such concepts. I reject religions because they have no evidence to support their claims and the bigoted, hateful, self-righteous attitudes and large persecution-complexes that so many of them display doesn't help much either. In the eyes of religious fundamentalists and some moderates, it's okay to persecute and discriminate others because in their eyes, what they are doing is not really persecution or discrimination, they are only doing what their god wants. Whenever you call religious fundamentalists out on their mean-spirited behavior, they always accuse you of "persecuting" them.
When does the hate, bigotry, discrimination, oppression and hypocrisy end?
Stop using taxpayer money to oppose marriage equality
Sign the Petition
Paid for by Mark Schauer for Governor PO Box 100, Battle Creek, MI, 49016
Here is a Michigan ad that a friend told me about. I think that's sick that Gov. Snyder uses to taxpayer dollars to deny same-sex couples the right to legally marry. I'm a monogamous, heterosexual married woman and I do not, in any way consider myself superior to same-sex couples, unmarried couples or polyamorous couples. I don't think that I deserve marriage rights more than same-sex couples. I'm so sick and tired of religious fundamentalists, social and political conservatives acting as if they speak for me as a heterosexual woman. They don't.
I just read an article about Chick-Fil-A on AtheistNexus.org and how this restaurant with religious motivations uses it's money to fund homophobic organizations that want to deny same-sex couples the legal right to marry. I am an atheist who is formerly religious. I don't agree with religiously-based definitions of marriage. Civil governments do not and should not give recognition to religiously-based marriages. The civil government should of course let religious groups provide " holy matrimonial" services for their members, but they should not recognize religiously-based marriages, they should only recognize civil marriages. That's part of the separation of church and state. Some religious institutions choose to and want to marry same-sex couples in a service of "holy matrimony" and that is their choice. Again, why do religious fundamentalists care so much about civil marriages. You are NOT supposed to care about "worldly" affairs. You are SUPPOSED to be in the world, but not of the world. You know, religious organizations claim to be all about "family values" and most of them are lying. For instance, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Amish claim to be all about "family", well in the eyes of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and the Amish communes, family are only the people who hold to the same religious beliefs and practices that you do. If they do not hold the same religious beliefs and practices that you do, they are not your family and they are not your friends. Most JW's and Amish persons as individuals are good people, even if they hold some very wrong beliefs about the world. The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Amish denominations are filled with a lot of moral corruption. On "LGBT News Weekly" a long time ago, I read a comment from a homophobic JW about how Kingdom Hall's would "never" marry same-sex couples. I think it would be nice if LGBT people were accepted as fully equal members of the JW's and were allowed to marry in Kingdom Halls, maybe someday they will, I'm not going to hold my breath though. I think it would be nice if Kingdom Halls would marry same-sex couples, they don't have to, they don't have to allow LGBT persons as members either, it would be nice of them; either way, it still doesn't change the fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses are a homophobic, transphobic and bigoted religious institution.
It's okay to treat apostates, LGBT people, women and non-members of your religious group like dirt because that is the right thing to do and we all know that shunning people and being a bigot is the Christian thing to do. Apparently, this is how Jesus would have behaved. Well, the Biblical Jesus did compare a Gentile woman to a dog, back then that was the equivalent of a racial slur. The views and behavior of Fundamentalist Muslims, fundamentalists Buddhists, fundamentalist Hindus, fundamentalist Evangelicals, fundamentalist Pentecostals, fundamentalist Born-Again Christians, Southern Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Orthodox Mormons, Fundamentalist Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists, Church of God, Church of Christ, Assemblies of God, the Church of God in Christ, African Methodist Episcopal, the Greek Orthodox Church, the fundamentalist Mennonites, fundamentalist Roman Catholicism, fundamentalist Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, the Amish etc., are one of the reasons why I have abandoned organized religion. I largely don't believe in a god or an afterlife due to the lack of variable evidence or moral reasoning for such concepts. I reject religions because they have no evidence to support their claims and the bigoted, hateful, self-righteous attitudes and large persecution-complexes that so many of them display doesn't help much either. In the eyes of religious fundamentalists and some moderates, it's okay to persecute and discriminate others because in their eyes, what they are doing is not really persecution or discrimination, they are only doing what their god wants. Whenever you call religious fundamentalists out on their mean-spirited behavior, they always accuse you of "persecuting" them.
When does the hate, bigotry, discrimination, oppression and hypocrisy end?
My Heritage ad
Mormon Church Genealogy
Millions of Genealogical Profiles Brose them with Ease
www . myheritage .com
Personally, there's nothing wrong with learning about your heritage, but Orthodox Mormons also do this to baptize deceased ancestors who may not have been Mormons during their lifetimes into the LDS Church. Ancestors who died before the LDS Church came into existence are also baptized in to the Church posthumously. Non-Mormons who are deceased, even if they are of no familial relation to you are baptized into the Church. I highly doubt that any deceased people are going to accept these baptisms.
Millions of Genealogical Profiles Brose them with Ease
www . myheritage .com
Personally, there's nothing wrong with learning about your heritage, but Orthodox Mormons also do this to baptize deceased ancestors who may not have been Mormons during their lifetimes into the LDS Church. Ancestors who died before the LDS Church came into existence are also baptized in to the Church posthumously. Non-Mormons who are deceased, even if they are of no familial relation to you are baptized into the Church. I highly doubt that any deceased people are going to accept these baptisms.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Biblical film on YouTube and my critism
Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph Full...)
Highly Blessed
14,764
1:50:22
Personally, I wouldn't bother to watch this film. I, being an atheist can enjoy religious-themed films like " The Ten Commandments", " The Gospel of Matthew", " Godspell", " The King of Kings", " Jesus Christ Superstar", The Last Temptation of Christ", " Ben-Hur" and " The Prince of Egypt" without agreeing with the religious messages that are in such films. " Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph" doesn't look like it is high quality and the title seems longer than the actual film. I will say that I enjoy the fact that Highly Blessed posted episodes of the classic TV sitcom " The Golden Girls".
Highly Blessed
14,764
1:50:22
Personally, I wouldn't bother to watch this film. I, being an atheist can enjoy religious-themed films like " The Ten Commandments", " The Gospel of Matthew", " Godspell", " The King of Kings", " Jesus Christ Superstar", The Last Temptation of Christ", " Ben-Hur" and " The Prince of Egypt" without agreeing with the religious messages that are in such films. " Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph" doesn't look like it is high quality and the title seems longer than the actual film. I will say that I enjoy the fact that Highly Blessed posted episodes of the classic TV sitcom " The Golden Girls".
Traditional Marriage Ad
Do You Support Traditional Marriage?
Vote Now !
I am a heterosexual married woman. No, I don't support "traditional marriage" because I don't believe in the concept. Traditional marriage would be one man being married to numerous women. I fully support the legal right for same-sex couples to marry and that is that. The Bible supports polygamy. King David and Solomon were polygamists as was Abraham. Why do so many fundamentalist Christians reject the idea of Biblically-based polygamous marriages? Think about that, my dear readers. Think about that.
Sincerely,
B.W.
Vote Now !
I am a heterosexual married woman. No, I don't support "traditional marriage" because I don't believe in the concept. Traditional marriage would be one man being married to numerous women. I fully support the legal right for same-sex couples to marry and that is that. The Bible supports polygamy. King David and Solomon were polygamists as was Abraham. Why do so many fundamentalist Christians reject the idea of Biblically-based polygamous marriages? Think about that, my dear readers. Think about that.
Sincerely,
B.W.
Earthy Religion website description and article on polyamory
Earthly Religion
Home
Writing
Calendar
Counseling
Links
Contribute
Contact
.
Loving More and More Loving
“These things abide: faith, hope, and love, but the greatest of these is love.” (1 Cor. 13:13)
“Love, oh love, you crazy love.” Love is the cause and core of being human. Lusty love, luscious love, languid love, lively love, lovely love, we yearn for love, go wild in love, grow stale in love, grant our love, give it, get it, grasp it, lose it, find it, make it, grow it, get saved by it. Annoying love, obsessive love, exploring love, ignoring love, deploring love, exporting love, controlling love, embroiling love, confounding love, astounding love, compounding love, costly love, bossy love, lousy love, lonely love, atoning love, free love, more love – we humans know the risk, and yet we want it.
“The Greatest thing you’ll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return” (Eden Abez)
On this Valentine’s Day let us consider if we have learned this. How are we at love? It is so human to wonder and care and try and want and miss and hold. We are born of love, love of our parents, love of all our ancestors, love of life’s yearning for itself. How can we be better at love? As religious liberals allowed to honestly consider such topics, as Universalists seeking to love all as God loves all, we can ask in the most cosmic sense and the most intimate, how can we be loving more and be more loving? Love, the yearning to join and replicate, is built into the chemical bonds that make life. From crystals to amino acids to cells to organisms to animals to us, love builds us. From a crystal “wanting” to grow to our “wanting” another, love is built in, seeming to us as attraction, appreciation, and affection. Look at the animals. The birds grow close, share the nest, feed the chicks, and they send their dear ones off. The bull elks bash their heads together, striving with all they have to prevail in order to gain access to those juicy cows. Are not chemistry, bonding, contending and succeeding not part of what is in us?
I don’t want to commit “The Naturalistic Fallacy,” saying that nature’s patterns determine our human ways. We can do it differently if we want. In the afterward of the second edition of Dawkin’s Selfish Gene, he admits that though the worms he studied didn’t demonstrate altruism, we humans could decide to be more giving anyway. I think he was too reductionist. All kinds of cooperative and kind behaviors are also in nature and are built into us. Let’s not commit “The Naturalistic Fallacy Fallacy” either. Should we ignore all similar behaviors to us in the animals as if such tendencies had no influence in us at all?
For instance, we have long been told our closest animal is the chimp. Chimps have a social structure where big males jealously dominate smaller or weaker ones, and so keep more females for sexual partners and mothers. The females are mostly loyal, but they sometimes sneak out and mate with the bachelors in the bushes. We’re told we’re wicked for also being like this – jealous, domineering, sneaky, unfaithful. This is the sort of “animal behavior” we’re to acknowledge but overcome, cleaving to our one mate only and ever. Curiously, on the other side of the Congo River from the chimps, on the “left bank,” as it were, are the pigmy chimps. Physically, they look more human than chimps do. Look at their gait and mouth. These apes, also called the bonobos, are more matriarchal. The mother apes raise their babes served by the males and other females. The bonobos do a lot with sex. Lots of times every day they have short copulations with various males or sometimes females. The babes are right there to see all this, sometimes still clinging to the mother. Rewards are given and disputes are settled with quick promiscuous sex. The bonobos are more peaceful than the chimps. They’re the “free love” apes.
We humans share the same limb of the huge family tree with both the chimps and the bonobos. If chimps somehow justified or modeled domination, ownership, and war, would the bonobos legitimate communal respect, free love and peace? Somewhere between our ape-like beginnings and the first writings of history the creation myths I love so much arose. Curious that the affirmation of all nature, including us, including our sexuality, of Genesis One would be overshadowed by the Garden of Eden myth where the fall from innocent attunement was caused by judgment, and marked by shame, of sex.
‘Yes, we have no bonobos, we have no bonobos these days.’ Except, we do. There’s always been a free love aspect to the natural human community. Any honest telling of the Founding Fathers would show how practiced these guys were at trying to be fathers. But, their bold, humanistic faith in us as we are comes after a tortuous human diversion. Pre-agricultural humans are believed to have been more egalitarian. Not much hoarding when one’s people were mobile gatherers and hunters. It is only when settled populations start farming grain that women could be put to work processing it. Inequality of wealth led to power over others at home and war on the frontier. Wives were owned. They were a dependent breeding and working stock. Even into the industrial age, women were owned as wives (complete with a strict expectation of monogamy – to try to insure what is unsure) or used as slaves, servants, and prostitutes. Lovers there have always been, though, for not even the most vigilant dominate chimp or sultan succeeds in preventing flings and clandestine lovers.
No matter the rules, there’s a bit of bonobo in all of us. In our changing society women are no longer always kept. Independent income allows for independent choices. The great venture of democracy puts trust in us. As we lose the susceptibility to be told and bossed by a dominate male, be he pope, king, boss, or husband, and instead have trust in ourselves to fully be who we really are, other relationships will emerge. There are good reasons and rewards for living your life as “one man, one woman, one lifetime.” But putting all love in that container can keep it from flowing and growing.
If we consider how crucial love is in humans we see its larger scope and hope. Human babes are born far earlier than comparable mammals. Our babes are utterly dependent. They’re born early to get this marvelous big brain out without hurting the mother or infant. For months, we’re dependent on love. We need milk and touch and eye contact and soothing sounds and warm embrace. Babes who don’t get that just wither and die, or maybe they persist in life, lacking in essential assurance and safety. We’re born dependent and we die dependent; we’re held, wiped, fed. In between we learn to be dependable, independent, and interdependent. The mammalian bond of love, touch, and play isn’t just for kittens and babies. Our reliable mutuality informs every stage and phase of human activity and community. Love is not just as the brief spurt of pleasure during sex; it is life-long in every direction. Love influences every aspect of human community. Where it is present and practiced, we flourish. Where it is absent and mocked, we wither.
How can we love more and be more loving? From sex to infant to child to sibling to student to lover to worker to parent to relations to country to world – how can we notice the love that nurtures us and make the ways to give it back? How do we be more universalistic, expanding both the breadth and depth of love in our lives, for those farthest from us to closest, to us inside, how do we find the ways to both love more and be more loving?
“Monogamy,” to alter Winston Churchill’s quote on democracy, “is the worst form of relationship, except for all the others.” We praise and impose monogamy as being synonymous with fidelity, as if it shows and grows love. However, I would assert that fidelity transcends monogamy. We are faithful to being there for the other person as they are and become, for better or worse, not making our love contingent on whether they ever love another. We don’t expect parents to love only one child, or children to love only one parent. We don’t assume all our needs will be magically met by only one person. Monogamy makes a lot of sense when the couple is of breeding age. Beyond that, there is more leeway for having various forms of love in addition to the primary relationship.
Some people even envision new sorts of families, where three or more could “marry.” The UUPA community holds a strong value in open, honest, acknowledged multi-partner love lives. This is not betrayal, for it is open and agreed to, with secondary partners needing the consent of primary ones. They try to maintain their primary love while also loving more. They wish to come to church as a sanctioned unit, not hide their dear ones in shame. It is a new coming out, testing our tolerance and understanding in unfamiliar ways. This seems risky and prone to upheaval, both for the people who wish to pursue this and for those around them. But consider the fragmented and then healed nature of many of our families now. Instead of merely “my X” as the result of a rancorous separation, various parents tend to their offspring and continue caring for their former spouses for their whole lives. Family exists across the marriages. It needn’t be trouble persisting. Children can know their blood parents, not just their step parents. Former spouses can care for each other in ways they never knew before. Family transcends and enfolds various marriages.
We romanticize life-long monogamous relations. We claim models in the animal world, but on closer examination find that hanky panky goes on. A tenth to almost a third of some birds are sired by other than the primary social mate. DNA testing on supposedly monogamous couples shows some two to three percent of the offspring are sired by someone else than the apparent husband. While over half of men (towards 70%) stray at least once during a marriage, almost as many women do too (30% – 60%). Sometimes the most apparently devoted wives have sudden flings with macho sorts of men. Usually, revelation of such extra-marital affairs is met with great upheaval, accusation, hurt, retaliation and assumed divorce. It need not be so if we seek a more informed and compassionate understanding.
Without being reductionist, we can see how our chemistry challenges our love. Testosterone drives sex in men, and to a lesser extent, in women. When a man is successful, admired and moneyed his testosterone goes up. Women are keyed into this, for mating upward in social status is inherent in both animal and human populations. They get excited by status and swagger, especially during the ovulation portion of their monthly cycle. Meanwhile, the thrill of initial love, with its attendant spike in dopamine, has waned for both husband and wife. The thrill of sex or romantic attraction creates and then resides in the oxytocin of comfy connectedness. This bonding agent, high between mother and newborn, is high also in stable couples. High, but dull. Attraction turns to exhaustion. Men shoot hundreds of millions of self-cells a day in as many places as they can; women guard their few monthly self-cells, seeking just one man to father the child and stay by her. He can come and go, as it were, while she gets stuck with the results – life-long results. We can see how her need for support, and his need for assurance the babes are his, both work toward monogamy, but that monogamy itself can be seem like monotony.
Familiarity breeds contempt, yes, but familiarity can also breathe content. It depends on how people understand their mutual predicament. Can we admit marriage can become a bore and a chore, trying always to serve it, losing our soul as we go?
Something Else by Nin Andrews
“Sometimes you say I’m something else, and you mean I’m good, really good, but honey, don’t say that, please? Reminds me how my dad used to say, I’m just not myself today. As if here were some kind of imposter dad. Then he’d ask things like: Why don’t you go play with James? Has the dog had his walk yet? Will you kindly get out of my cotton-pickin’ hair? Sometimes he’d come home from work carrying his hat and a brown paper bag, and I’d know he wasn’t my dad… My mom often said he wasn’t the man she married. And I thought about that. How, when they were married, I wasn’t me, either. I wasn’t anyone. I didn’t like to dwell on that. It kind of gave me the creeps, but I liked to ask, Were you really in love then? Of course, she’d say. Did you hold hands? Yes. Kiss in public? Sit on his lap? Yes, yes, I did all that. Once She even showed me photos she kept in her lingerie drawer beneath her slips and silky things she never wore anymore: him in his spats and slick-shined hair, her in a pink crinoline cocktail dress with her long bangs clipped back in pearly barrettes. Not a thought in her head, except maybe Don’t I look swell? And Love me. And he did. Did he say so? He said it every day. He was something else back then.” (“Something Else” by Nin Andrews, from Southern Comfort. (c) Caran Kerry Press, 2009)
Love fades. Attraction leads to fulfillment, then emptiness often. The oxytocin serves our relatedness and family stability. It reduces cortisol, the wearing stress reaction chemical. But to be whole, we need some passion, some sizzle, some fun. I would not chase us because we are built this way. Rather than insult the Creator by saying we’re flawed, maybe our expectations of our relationships are flawed. And it’s not just sex that we want with others. Our romantic love life is part of what keeps us alive. Can we agree to help find it with each other? Can couples admit their attractions without cringing for fear of reprisals? Can we admit we need various kinds of persons at various times of our lives? Can fidelity to the other transcend the expectation of monogamy by the other? Can love of one’s spouse be so selfless as to be glad and supportive of their knowing occasional others, closer to a polyamorous ideal, more bonobo than chimp?
It depends on how honest and adventurous we are. This is largely influenced by the supportive culture around it and the norms and agreements of what is fair and loving and not. I’ve seen settings where hugs are given in every direction. Current couples get along easily with former lovers. Jealousy is admitted when needed, and held as need be, but a more generous ideal is admitted and attained. Other settings tolerate no hugs. Every hug is eyed suspiciously, cause for confrontation, ready to be riled. Attractions are not honored; they’re shamed, ridiculed, seen as failure, betrayal. Which sort of expectations did you come up with? Which would you like to continue with? Lest we be blinded by the narrow norms of our somewhat puritan culture, let us consider the mistress system in Europe and the wives-have-their-lovers system in South America, South India, and South China. In these cases, community cohesion and lack of violence prevail. In places were women are owned and repressed, stoned, whipped, burned, and shot, jealousy and righteousness ride rampage, blinding all understanding, compassion or love.
Sex was not the sin in the Garden, judgment was, and shame, blame and pain were the alienating consequences of forgetting the great good that God made for the shallow goods and evils of subtly deceiving moralists. Love and sex are not our fault; they are our origin and glory. I’m not for us breaking into a free-love frenzy. But I am for freeing love. Couples need not dissolve because of attractions, connections, and honesty. We can be with each other with all our fears and failures, and we can be with each other with all our daring wholeness and success. Who is to say? If we were to get out of the dominating, jealous, repressive style of the chimps, and into a more egalitarian, liberal, and communal style of the bonobo, what might come of it? We’re neither chimps nor bonobos, but of something akin to both. Being human is becoming aware of how love pervades our very existence, enlivening our private and communal souls. Can we be authentic, supporting each other as we go deeper than fear and reaction? Can familiarity breathe content? How to love more and be more loving?
Reverend Brad Carrier
For the Unitarian Universalists of Grants Pass
© February 14, 2010
digg
< Lifting the Leaf and Loving the Lovely Marriage, Gay Marriage and the Human Family >
Read More…
Looking for a specific article? View the complete listing of articles here on the Writings page, or try out the search box below. (coming soon)
Contribute
Contributions can be small or large; all are appreciated. We are not yet a 501 C-3 sanctioned organization. Your gift is just that – a gift, a contribution. I will not pester you for more and I will not ever release any information of visitors and contributors to this site. Please know it has taken me 15 years to migrate from full-time UU ministry towards full-time work for God’s Goods and Earthly Religion. Your participation and support is truly appreciated.
Most Recent Articles
• Global Warming Explained – 4 Good Resources
Friends know I’ve been spending lots of time learning about and addressing Global Warming. What is it? What to do? Here are my favorite sites for easy-to-picture, comprehensive, and reliable information. Click around on the many links in each for a fast and fun view of the slow and problematic predicament we’re in. You might want to visit and bookmark each now for easy reference later. From NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration): http://www.climate.gov/ From NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration); http://climate.nasa.gov/ The ... Read more →
• Father’s Day Interview
I was interviewed by my dear friend, Aletha Nowitzky, on her Saturday morning (10 – 11AM) radio show “Tasty Topics and Tantalizing Tunes” on KSKQ in Ashland, Oregon. (A low-power local station, but you can listen live on line.) She posted the show on their archive. Take a listen; it does a good job of exploring fatherhood, especially from my dad and for my three sons: http://www.kskq.org/index.php/145-tasty-topics-and-tantalizing-tunes/2048-tasty-topics-and-tantalizing-tunes-hosted-by-aletha-nowitzky-6-15-2013-an-innerview-with-ashland-dad-brad-carrier-in-honor-of-father-s-day (function() {var s = document.createElement('SCRIPT'), s1 = document.getElementsByTagName('SCRIPT')[0];s.type = 'text/javascript';s.async ... Read more →
• God’s Goods: Human and Natural
God’s Goods: Human and Natural I’m so glad you’ve invited me here today and that you’ve come. This brief sermon has been forty years in the making. They say preachers really only have one sermon that they then elaborate on. This is that one. It says what I most care about and intend to serve the rest of my life. I’ll be using some religious terms here. I hope and trust that doesn’t dissuade the more humanistic ... Read more →
Copyright 2011 EarthlyReligion.com | All Rights Reserved.
Site Designed by Rogue Easy Web | Articles RSS Feed
http://www.earthlyreligion.com/loving-more-and-more-loving/
Earthly Religion
Home
Writing
Calendar
Counseling
Links
Contribute
Contact
.
Welcome to Earthly Religion, the Internet presence of God’s Goods, a humanistic, naturalistic, deistic religion.
This religion does not expect you to believe in God, the Bible, or any particular religious authority. Rather, it places faith in our human prerogatives and abilities, our earth’s interrelated system of life, and the natural laws which allow security, ability, freedom, and ultimate meaning.
Both non-believers and believers are welcome here. The emphasis isn’t on believing; it’s on being and behaving, living well with yourself, each other, and life on earth.
The attention here is on the earthly. Supernatural speculations and possibilities are interesting but diverting. Our religious responsibility and opportunity is found in these bodies on this earth.
While we take our religious perspective and work seriously, we don’t want it to be stuffy. Too often, religions are alien to the human condition rather than affirming of it. We lean more towards the fun and sexy, natural and lively, human and humane.
Look through the essays, editorials, sermons, reviews, and blogs. You’ll find pertinent, provocative thinking towards a free, ethical, and healthy way of life. You may respond and participate. All sincere input is welcome; spam and hateful rants are trashed. As this site gains attention, participation, and contributions, it will grow to include and serve many worthy causes.
With your participation and support I will be more able to develop and apply the core ideas and values found here.
Most Recent Articles
• Global Warming Explained – 4 Good Resources
Friends know I’ve been spending lots of time learning about and addressing Global Warming. What is it? What to do? Here are my favorite sites for easy-to-picture, comprehensive, and reliable information. Click around on the many links in each for a fast and fun view of the slow and problematic predicament we’re in. You might want to visit and bookmark each now for easy reference later. From NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration): http://www.climate.gov/ From NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration); http://climate.nasa.gov/ The ... Read more →
• Father’s Day Interview
I was interviewed by my dear friend, Aletha Nowitzky, on her Saturday morning (10 – 11AM) radio show “Tasty Topics and Tantalizing Tunes” on KSKQ in Ashland, Oregon. (A low-power local station, but you can listen live on line.) She posted the show on their archive. Take a listen; it does a good job of exploring fatherhood, especially from my dad and for my three sons: http://www.kskq.org/index.php/145-tasty-topics-and-tantalizing-tunes/2048-tasty-topics-and-tantalizing-tunes-hosted-by-aletha-nowitzky-6-15-2013-an-innerview-with-ashland-dad-brad-carrier-in-honor-of-father-s-day Read more →
• God’s Goods: Human and Natural
God’s Goods: Human and Natural I’m so glad you’ve invited me here today and that you’ve come. This brief sermon has been forty years in the making. They say preachers really only have one sermon that they then elaborate on. This is that one. It says what I most care about and intend to serve the rest of my life. I’ll be using some religious terms here. I hope and trust that doesn’t dissuade the more humanistic ... Read more →
Copyright 2011 EarthlyReligion.com | All Rights Reserved.
Site Designed by Rogue Easy Web | Articles RSS Feed
http://www.earthlyreligion.com/
Earthly Religion
Home
Writing
Calendar
Counseling
Links
Contribute
Contact
.
Loving More and More Loving
“These things abide: faith, hope, and love, but the greatest of these is love.” (1 Cor. 13:13)
“Love, oh love, you crazy love.” Love is the cause and core of being human. Lusty love, luscious love, languid love, lively love, lovely love, we yearn for love, go wild in love, grow stale in love, grant our love, give it, get it, grasp it, lose it, find it, make it, grow it, get saved by it. Annoying love, obsessive love, exploring love, ignoring love, deploring love, exporting love, controlling love, embroiling love, confounding love, astounding love, compounding love, costly love, bossy love, lousy love, lonely love, atoning love, free love, more love – we humans know the risk, and yet we want it.
“The Greatest thing you’ll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return” (Eden Abez)
On this Valentine’s Day let us consider if we have learned this. How are we at love? It is so human to wonder and care and try and want and miss and hold. We are born of love, love of our parents, love of all our ancestors, love of life’s yearning for itself. How can we be better at love? As religious liberals allowed to honestly consider such topics, as Universalists seeking to love all as God loves all, we can ask in the most cosmic sense and the most intimate, how can we be loving more and be more loving? Love, the yearning to join and replicate, is built into the chemical bonds that make life. From crystals to amino acids to cells to organisms to animals to us, love builds us. From a crystal “wanting” to grow to our “wanting” another, love is built in, seeming to us as attraction, appreciation, and affection. Look at the animals. The birds grow close, share the nest, feed the chicks, and they send their dear ones off. The bull elks bash their heads together, striving with all they have to prevail in order to gain access to those juicy cows. Are not chemistry, bonding, contending and succeeding not part of what is in us?
I don’t want to commit “The Naturalistic Fallacy,” saying that nature’s patterns determine our human ways. We can do it differently if we want. In the afterward of the second edition of Dawkin’s Selfish Gene, he admits that though the worms he studied didn’t demonstrate altruism, we humans could decide to be more giving anyway. I think he was too reductionist. All kinds of cooperative and kind behaviors are also in nature and are built into us. Let’s not commit “The Naturalistic Fallacy Fallacy” either. Should we ignore all similar behaviors to us in the animals as if such tendencies had no influence in us at all?
For instance, we have long been told our closest animal is the chimp. Chimps have a social structure where big males jealously dominate smaller or weaker ones, and so keep more females for sexual partners and mothers. The females are mostly loyal, but they sometimes sneak out and mate with the bachelors in the bushes. We’re told we’re wicked for also being like this – jealous, domineering, sneaky, unfaithful. This is the sort of “animal behavior” we’re to acknowledge but overcome, cleaving to our one mate only and ever. Curiously, on the other side of the Congo River from the chimps, on the “left bank,” as it were, are the pigmy chimps. Physically, they look more human than chimps do. Look at their gait and mouth. These apes, also called the bonobos, are more matriarchal. The mother apes raise their babes served by the males and other females. The bonobos do a lot with sex. Lots of times every day they have short copulations with various males or sometimes females. The babes are right there to see all this, sometimes still clinging to the mother. Rewards are given and disputes are settled with quick promiscuous sex. The bonobos are more peaceful than the chimps. They’re the “free love” apes.
We humans share the same limb of the huge family tree with both the chimps and the bonobos. If chimps somehow justified or modeled domination, ownership, and war, would the bonobos legitimate communal respect, free love and peace? Somewhere between our ape-like beginnings and the first writings of history the creation myths I love so much arose. Curious that the affirmation of all nature, including us, including our sexuality, of Genesis One would be overshadowed by the Garden of Eden myth where the fall from innocent attunement was caused by judgment, and marked by shame, of sex.
‘Yes, we have no bonobos, we have no bonobos these days.’ Except, we do. There’s always been a free love aspect to the natural human community. Any honest telling of the Founding Fathers would show how practiced these guys were at trying to be fathers. But, their bold, humanistic faith in us as we are comes after a tortuous human diversion. Pre-agricultural humans are believed to have been more egalitarian. Not much hoarding when one’s people were mobile gatherers and hunters. It is only when settled populations start farming grain that women could be put to work processing it. Inequality of wealth led to power over others at home and war on the frontier. Wives were owned. They were a dependent breeding and working stock. Even into the industrial age, women were owned as wives (complete with a strict expectation of monogamy – to try to insure what is unsure) or used as slaves, servants, and prostitutes. Lovers there have always been, though, for not even the most vigilant dominate chimp or sultan succeeds in preventing flings and clandestine lovers.
No matter the rules, there’s a bit of bonobo in all of us. In our changing society women are no longer always kept. Independent income allows for independent choices. The great venture of democracy puts trust in us. As we lose the susceptibility to be told and bossed by a dominate male, be he pope, king, boss, or husband, and instead have trust in ourselves to fully be who we really are, other relationships will emerge. There are good reasons and rewards for living your life as “one man, one woman, one lifetime.” But putting all love in that container can keep it from flowing and growing.
If we consider how crucial love is in humans we see its larger scope and hope. Human babes are born far earlier than comparable mammals. Our babes are utterly dependent. They’re born early to get this marvelous big brain out without hurting the mother or infant. For months, we’re dependent on love. We need milk and touch and eye contact and soothing sounds and warm embrace. Babes who don’t get that just wither and die, or maybe they persist in life, lacking in essential assurance and safety. We’re born dependent and we die dependent; we’re held, wiped, fed. In between we learn to be dependable, independent, and interdependent. The mammalian bond of love, touch, and play isn’t just for kittens and babies. Our reliable mutuality informs every stage and phase of human activity and community. Love is not just as the brief spurt of pleasure during sex; it is life-long in every direction. Love influences every aspect of human community. Where it is present and practiced, we flourish. Where it is absent and mocked, we wither.
How can we love more and be more loving? From sex to infant to child to sibling to student to lover to worker to parent to relations to country to world – how can we notice the love that nurtures us and make the ways to give it back? How do we be more universalistic, expanding both the breadth and depth of love in our lives, for those farthest from us to closest, to us inside, how do we find the ways to both love more and be more loving?
“Monogamy,” to alter Winston Churchill’s quote on democracy, “is the worst form of relationship, except for all the others.” We praise and impose monogamy as being synonymous with fidelity, as if it shows and grows love. However, I would assert that fidelity transcends monogamy. We are faithful to being there for the other person as they are and become, for better or worse, not making our love contingent on whether they ever love another. We don’t expect parents to love only one child, or children to love only one parent. We don’t assume all our needs will be magically met by only one person. Monogamy makes a lot of sense when the couple is of breeding age. Beyond that, there is more leeway for having various forms of love in addition to the primary relationship.
Some people even envision new sorts of families, where three or more could “marry.” The UUPA community holds a strong value in open, honest, acknowledged multi-partner love lives. This is not betrayal, for it is open and agreed to, with secondary partners needing the consent of primary ones. They try to maintain their primary love while also loving more. They wish to come to church as a sanctioned unit, not hide their dear ones in shame. It is a new coming out, testing our tolerance and understanding in unfamiliar ways. This seems risky and prone to upheaval, both for the people who wish to pursue this and for those around them. But consider the fragmented and then healed nature of many of our families now. Instead of merely “my X” as the result of a rancorous separation, various parents tend to their offspring and continue caring for their former spouses for their whole lives. Family exists across the marriages. It needn’t be trouble persisting. Children can know their blood parents, not just their step parents. Former spouses can care for each other in ways they never knew before. Family transcends and enfolds various marriages.
We romanticize life-long monogamous relations. We claim models in the animal world, but on closer examination find that hanky panky goes on. A tenth to almost a third of some birds are sired by other than the primary social mate. DNA testing on supposedly monogamous couples shows some two to three percent of the offspring are sired by someone else than the apparent husband. While over half of men (towards 70%) stray at least once during a marriage, almost as many women do too (30% – 60%). Sometimes the most apparently devoted wives have sudden flings with macho sorts of men. Usually, revelation of such extra-marital affairs is met with great upheaval, accusation, hurt, retaliation and assumed divorce. It need not be so if we seek a more informed and compassionate understanding.
Without being reductionist, we can see how our chemistry challenges our love. Testosterone drives sex in men, and to a lesser extent, in women. When a man is successful, admired and moneyed his testosterone goes up. Women are keyed into this, for mating upward in social status is inherent in both animal and human populations. They get excited by status and swagger, especially during the ovulation portion of their monthly cycle. Meanwhile, the thrill of initial love, with its attendant spike in dopamine, has waned for both husband and wife. The thrill of sex or romantic attraction creates and then resides in the oxytocin of comfy connectedness. This bonding agent, high between mother and newborn, is high also in stable couples. High, but dull. Attraction turns to exhaustion. Men shoot hundreds of millions of self-cells a day in as many places as they can; women guard their few monthly self-cells, seeking just one man to father the child and stay by her. He can come and go, as it were, while she gets stuck with the results – life-long results. We can see how her need for support, and his need for assurance the babes are his, both work toward monogamy, but that monogamy itself can be seem like monotony.
Familiarity breeds contempt, yes, but familiarity can also breathe content. It depends on how people understand their mutual predicament. Can we admit marriage can become a bore and a chore, trying always to serve it, losing our soul as we go?
Something Else by Nin Andrews
“Sometimes you say I’m something else, and you mean I’m good, really good, but honey, don’t say that, please? Reminds me how my dad used to say, I’m just not myself today. As if here were some kind of imposter dad. Then he’d ask things like: Why don’t you go play with James? Has the dog had his walk yet? Will you kindly get out of my cotton-pickin’ hair? Sometimes he’d come home from work carrying his hat and a brown paper bag, and I’d know he wasn’t my dad… My mom often said he wasn’t the man she married. And I thought about that. How, when they were married, I wasn’t me, either. I wasn’t anyone. I didn’t like to dwell on that. It kind of gave me the creeps, but I liked to ask, Were you really in love then? Of course, she’d say. Did you hold hands? Yes. Kiss in public? Sit on his lap? Yes, yes, I did all that. Once She even showed me photos she kept in her lingerie drawer beneath her slips and silky things she never wore anymore: him in his spats and slick-shined hair, her in a pink crinoline cocktail dress with her long bangs clipped back in pearly barrettes. Not a thought in her head, except maybe Don’t I look swell? And Love me. And he did. Did he say so? He said it every day. He was something else back then.” (“Something Else” by Nin Andrews, from Southern Comfort. (c) Caran Kerry Press, 2009)
Love fades. Attraction leads to fulfillment, then emptiness often. The oxytocin serves our relatedness and family stability. It reduces cortisol, the wearing stress reaction chemical. But to be whole, we need some passion, some sizzle, some fun. I would not chase us because we are built this way. Rather than insult the Creator by saying we’re flawed, maybe our expectations of our relationships are flawed. And it’s not just sex that we want with others. Our romantic love life is part of what keeps us alive. Can we agree to help find it with each other? Can couples admit their attractions without cringing for fear of reprisals? Can we admit we need various kinds of persons at various times of our lives? Can fidelity to the other transcend the expectation of monogamy by the other? Can love of one’s spouse be so selfless as to be glad and supportive of their knowing occasional others, closer to a polyamorous ideal, more bonobo than chimp?
It depends on how honest and adventurous we are. This is largely influenced by the supportive culture around it and the norms and agreements of what is fair and loving and not. I’ve seen settings where hugs are given in every direction. Current couples get along easily with former lovers. Jealousy is admitted when needed, and held as need be, but a more generous ideal is admitted and attained. Other settings tolerate no hugs. Every hug is eyed suspiciously, cause for confrontation, ready to be riled. Attractions are not honored; they’re shamed, ridiculed, seen as failure, betrayal. Which sort of expectations did you come up with? Which would you like to continue with? Lest we be blinded by the narrow norms of our somewhat puritan culture, let us consider the mistress system in Europe and the wives-have-their-lovers system in South America, South India, and South China. In these cases, community cohesion and lack of violence prevail. In places were women are owned and repressed, stoned, whipped, burned, and shot, jealousy and righteousness ride rampage, blinding all understanding, compassion or love.
Sex was not the sin in the Garden, judgment was, and shame, blame and pain were the alienating consequences of forgetting the great good that God made for the shallow goods and evils of subtly deceiving moralists. Love and sex are not our fault; they are our origin and glory. I’m not for us breaking into a free-love frenzy. But I am for freeing love. Couples need not dissolve because of attractions, connections, and honesty. We can be with each other with all our fears and failures, and we can be with each other with all our daring wholeness and success. Who is to say? If we were to get out of the dominating, jealous, repressive style of the chimps, and into a more egalitarian, liberal, and communal style of the bonobo, what might come of it? We’re neither chimps nor bonobos, but of something akin to both. Being human is becoming aware of how love pervades our very existence, enlivening our private and communal souls. Can we be authentic, supporting each other as we go deeper than fear and reaction? Can familiarity breathe content? How to love more and be more loving?
Reverend Brad Carrier
For the Unitarian Universalists of Grants Pass
© February 14, 2010
digg
< Lifting the Leaf and Loving the Lovely Marriage, Gay Marriage and the Human Family >
Read More…
Looking for a specific article? View the complete listing of articles here on the Writings page, or try out the search box below. (coming soon)
Contribute
Contributions can be small or large; all are appreciated. We are not yet a 501 C-3 sanctioned organization. Your gift is just that – a gift, a contribution. I will not pester you for more and I will not ever release any information of visitors and contributors to this site. Please know it has taken me 15 years to migrate from full-time UU ministry towards full-time work for God’s Goods and Earthly Religion. Your participation and support is truly appreciated.
Most Recent Articles
• Global Warming Explained – 4 Good Resources
Friends know I’ve been spending lots of time learning about and addressing Global Warming. What is it? What to do? Here are my favorite sites for easy-to-picture, comprehensive, and reliable information. Click around on the many links in each for a fast and fun view of the slow and problematic predicament we’re in. You might want to visit and bookmark each now for easy reference later. From NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration): http://www.climate.gov/ From NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration); http://climate.nasa.gov/ The ... Read more →
• Father’s Day Interview
I was interviewed by my dear friend, Aletha Nowitzky, on her Saturday morning (10 – 11AM) radio show “Tasty Topics and Tantalizing Tunes” on KSKQ in Ashland, Oregon. (A low-power local station, but you can listen live on line.) She posted the show on their archive. Take a listen; it does a good job of exploring fatherhood, especially from my dad and for my three sons: http://www.kskq.org/index.php/145-tasty-topics-and-tantalizing-tunes/2048-tasty-topics-and-tantalizing-tunes-hosted-by-aletha-nowitzky-6-15-2013-an-innerview-with-ashland-dad-brad-carrier-in-honor-of-father-s-day (function() {var s = document.createElement('SCRIPT'), s1 = document.getElementsByTagName('SCRIPT')[0];s.type = 'text/javascript';s.async ... Read more →
• God’s Goods: Human and Natural
God’s Goods: Human and Natural I’m so glad you’ve invited me here today and that you’ve come. This brief sermon has been forty years in the making. They say preachers really only have one sermon that they then elaborate on. This is that one. It says what I most care about and intend to serve the rest of my life. I’ll be using some religious terms here. I hope and trust that doesn’t dissuade the more humanistic ... Read more →
Copyright 2011 EarthlyReligion.com | All Rights Reserved.
Site Designed by Rogue Easy Web | Articles RSS Feed
http://www.earthlyreligion.com/loving-more-and-more-loving/
Earthly Religion
Home
Writing
Calendar
Counseling
Links
Contribute
Contact
.
Welcome to Earthly Religion, the Internet presence of God’s Goods, a humanistic, naturalistic, deistic religion.
This religion does not expect you to believe in God, the Bible, or any particular religious authority. Rather, it places faith in our human prerogatives and abilities, our earth’s interrelated system of life, and the natural laws which allow security, ability, freedom, and ultimate meaning.
Both non-believers and believers are welcome here. The emphasis isn’t on believing; it’s on being and behaving, living well with yourself, each other, and life on earth.
The attention here is on the earthly. Supernatural speculations and possibilities are interesting but diverting. Our religious responsibility and opportunity is found in these bodies on this earth.
While we take our religious perspective and work seriously, we don’t want it to be stuffy. Too often, religions are alien to the human condition rather than affirming of it. We lean more towards the fun and sexy, natural and lively, human and humane.
Look through the essays, editorials, sermons, reviews, and blogs. You’ll find pertinent, provocative thinking towards a free, ethical, and healthy way of life. You may respond and participate. All sincere input is welcome; spam and hateful rants are trashed. As this site gains attention, participation, and contributions, it will grow to include and serve many worthy causes.
With your participation and support I will be more able to develop and apply the core ideas and values found here.
Most Recent Articles
• Global Warming Explained – 4 Good Resources
Friends know I’ve been spending lots of time learning about and addressing Global Warming. What is it? What to do? Here are my favorite sites for easy-to-picture, comprehensive, and reliable information. Click around on the many links in each for a fast and fun view of the slow and problematic predicament we’re in. You might want to visit and bookmark each now for easy reference later. From NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration): http://www.climate.gov/ From NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration); http://climate.nasa.gov/ The ... Read more →
• Father’s Day Interview
I was interviewed by my dear friend, Aletha Nowitzky, on her Saturday morning (10 – 11AM) radio show “Tasty Topics and Tantalizing Tunes” on KSKQ in Ashland, Oregon. (A low-power local station, but you can listen live on line.) She posted the show on their archive. Take a listen; it does a good job of exploring fatherhood, especially from my dad and for my three sons: http://www.kskq.org/index.php/145-tasty-topics-and-tantalizing-tunes/2048-tasty-topics-and-tantalizing-tunes-hosted-by-aletha-nowitzky-6-15-2013-an-innerview-with-ashland-dad-brad-carrier-in-honor-of-father-s-day Read more →
• God’s Goods: Human and Natural
God’s Goods: Human and Natural I’m so glad you’ve invited me here today and that you’ve come. This brief sermon has been forty years in the making. They say preachers really only have one sermon that they then elaborate on. This is that one. It says what I most care about and intend to serve the rest of my life. I’ll be using some religious terms here. I hope and trust that doesn’t dissuade the more humanistic ... Read more →
Copyright 2011 EarthlyReligion.com | All Rights Reserved.
Site Designed by Rogue Easy Web | Articles RSS Feed
http://www.earthlyreligion.com/
Home
Writing
Calendar
Counseling
Links
Contribute
Contact
.
Loving More and More Loving
“These things abide: faith, hope, and love, but the greatest of these is love.” (1 Cor. 13:13)
“Love, oh love, you crazy love.” Love is the cause and core of being human. Lusty love, luscious love, languid love, lively love, lovely love, we yearn for love, go wild in love, grow stale in love, grant our love, give it, get it, grasp it, lose it, find it, make it, grow it, get saved by it. Annoying love, obsessive love, exploring love, ignoring love, deploring love, exporting love, controlling love, embroiling love, confounding love, astounding love, compounding love, costly love, bossy love, lousy love, lonely love, atoning love, free love, more love – we humans know the risk, and yet we want it.
“The Greatest thing you’ll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return” (Eden Abez)
On this Valentine’s Day let us consider if we have learned this. How are we at love? It is so human to wonder and care and try and want and miss and hold. We are born of love, love of our parents, love of all our ancestors, love of life’s yearning for itself. How can we be better at love? As religious liberals allowed to honestly consider such topics, as Universalists seeking to love all as God loves all, we can ask in the most cosmic sense and the most intimate, how can we be loving more and be more loving? Love, the yearning to join and replicate, is built into the chemical bonds that make life. From crystals to amino acids to cells to organisms to animals to us, love builds us. From a crystal “wanting” to grow to our “wanting” another, love is built in, seeming to us as attraction, appreciation, and affection. Look at the animals. The birds grow close, share the nest, feed the chicks, and they send their dear ones off. The bull elks bash their heads together, striving with all they have to prevail in order to gain access to those juicy cows. Are not chemistry, bonding, contending and succeeding not part of what is in us?
I don’t want to commit “The Naturalistic Fallacy,” saying that nature’s patterns determine our human ways. We can do it differently if we want. In the afterward of the second edition of Dawkin’s Selfish Gene, he admits that though the worms he studied didn’t demonstrate altruism, we humans could decide to be more giving anyway. I think he was too reductionist. All kinds of cooperative and kind behaviors are also in nature and are built into us. Let’s not commit “The Naturalistic Fallacy Fallacy” either. Should we ignore all similar behaviors to us in the animals as if such tendencies had no influence in us at all?
For instance, we have long been told our closest animal is the chimp. Chimps have a social structure where big males jealously dominate smaller or weaker ones, and so keep more females for sexual partners and mothers. The females are mostly loyal, but they sometimes sneak out and mate with the bachelors in the bushes. We’re told we’re wicked for also being like this – jealous, domineering, sneaky, unfaithful. This is the sort of “animal behavior” we’re to acknowledge but overcome, cleaving to our one mate only and ever. Curiously, on the other side of the Congo River from the chimps, on the “left bank,” as it were, are the pigmy chimps. Physically, they look more human than chimps do. Look at their gait and mouth. These apes, also called the bonobos, are more matriarchal. The mother apes raise their babes served by the males and other females. The bonobos do a lot with sex. Lots of times every day they have short copulations with various males or sometimes females. The babes are right there to see all this, sometimes still clinging to the mother. Rewards are given and disputes are settled with quick promiscuous sex. The bonobos are more peaceful than the chimps. They’re the “free love” apes.
We humans share the same limb of the huge family tree with both the chimps and the bonobos. If chimps somehow justified or modeled domination, ownership, and war, would the bonobos legitimate communal respect, free love and peace? Somewhere between our ape-like beginnings and the first writings of history the creation myths I love so much arose. Curious that the affirmation of all nature, including us, including our sexuality, of Genesis One would be overshadowed by the Garden of Eden myth where the fall from innocent attunement was caused by judgment, and marked by shame, of sex.
‘Yes, we have no bonobos, we have no bonobos these days.’ Except, we do. There’s always been a free love aspect to the natural human community. Any honest telling of the Founding Fathers would show how practiced these guys were at trying to be fathers. But, their bold, humanistic faith in us as we are comes after a tortuous human diversion. Pre-agricultural humans are believed to have been more egalitarian. Not much hoarding when one’s people were mobile gatherers and hunters. It is only when settled populations start farming grain that women could be put to work processing it. Inequality of wealth led to power over others at home and war on the frontier. Wives were owned. They were a dependent breeding and working stock. Even into the industrial age, women were owned as wives (complete with a strict expectation of monogamy – to try to insure what is unsure) or used as slaves, servants, and prostitutes. Lovers there have always been, though, for not even the most vigilant dominate chimp or sultan succeeds in preventing flings and clandestine lovers.
No matter the rules, there’s a bit of bonobo in all of us. In our changing society women are no longer always kept. Independent income allows for independent choices. The great venture of democracy puts trust in us. As we lose the susceptibility to be told and bossed by a dominate male, be he pope, king, boss, or husband, and instead have trust in ourselves to fully be who we really are, other relationships will emerge. There are good reasons and rewards for living your life as “one man, one woman, one lifetime.” But putting all love in that container can keep it from flowing and growing.
If we consider how crucial love is in humans we see its larger scope and hope. Human babes are born far earlier than comparable mammals. Our babes are utterly dependent. They’re born early to get this marvelous big brain out without hurting the mother or infant. For months, we’re dependent on love. We need milk and touch and eye contact and soothing sounds and warm embrace. Babes who don’t get that just wither and die, or maybe they persist in life, lacking in essential assurance and safety. We’re born dependent and we die dependent; we’re held, wiped, fed. In between we learn to be dependable, independent, and interdependent. The mammalian bond of love, touch, and play isn’t just for kittens and babies. Our reliable mutuality informs every stage and phase of human activity and community. Love is not just as the brief spurt of pleasure during sex; it is life-long in every direction. Love influences every aspect of human community. Where it is present and practiced, we flourish. Where it is absent and mocked, we wither.
How can we love more and be more loving? From sex to infant to child to sibling to student to lover to worker to parent to relations to country to world – how can we notice the love that nurtures us and make the ways to give it back? How do we be more universalistic, expanding both the breadth and depth of love in our lives, for those farthest from us to closest, to us inside, how do we find the ways to both love more and be more loving?
“Monogamy,” to alter Winston Churchill’s quote on democracy, “is the worst form of relationship, except for all the others.” We praise and impose monogamy as being synonymous with fidelity, as if it shows and grows love. However, I would assert that fidelity transcends monogamy. We are faithful to being there for the other person as they are and become, for better or worse, not making our love contingent on whether they ever love another. We don’t expect parents to love only one child, or children to love only one parent. We don’t assume all our needs will be magically met by only one person. Monogamy makes a lot of sense when the couple is of breeding age. Beyond that, there is more leeway for having various forms of love in addition to the primary relationship.
Some people even envision new sorts of families, where three or more could “marry.” The UUPA community holds a strong value in open, honest, acknowledged multi-partner love lives. This is not betrayal, for it is open and agreed to, with secondary partners needing the consent of primary ones. They try to maintain their primary love while also loving more. They wish to come to church as a sanctioned unit, not hide their dear ones in shame. It is a new coming out, testing our tolerance and understanding in unfamiliar ways. This seems risky and prone to upheaval, both for the people who wish to pursue this and for those around them. But consider the fragmented and then healed nature of many of our families now. Instead of merely “my X” as the result of a rancorous separation, various parents tend to their offspring and continue caring for their former spouses for their whole lives. Family exists across the marriages. It needn’t be trouble persisting. Children can know their blood parents, not just their step parents. Former spouses can care for each other in ways they never knew before. Family transcends and enfolds various marriages.
We romanticize life-long monogamous relations. We claim models in the animal world, but on closer examination find that hanky panky goes on. A tenth to almost a third of some birds are sired by other than the primary social mate. DNA testing on supposedly monogamous couples shows some two to three percent of the offspring are sired by someone else than the apparent husband. While over half of men (towards 70%) stray at least once during a marriage, almost as many women do too (30% – 60%). Sometimes the most apparently devoted wives have sudden flings with macho sorts of men. Usually, revelation of such extra-marital affairs is met with great upheaval, accusation, hurt, retaliation and assumed divorce. It need not be so if we seek a more informed and compassionate understanding.
Without being reductionist, we can see how our chemistry challenges our love. Testosterone drives sex in men, and to a lesser extent, in women. When a man is successful, admired and moneyed his testosterone goes up. Women are keyed into this, for mating upward in social status is inherent in both animal and human populations. They get excited by status and swagger, especially during the ovulation portion of their monthly cycle. Meanwhile, the thrill of initial love, with its attendant spike in dopamine, has waned for both husband and wife. The thrill of sex or romantic attraction creates and then resides in the oxytocin of comfy connectedness. This bonding agent, high between mother and newborn, is high also in stable couples. High, but dull. Attraction turns to exhaustion. Men shoot hundreds of millions of self-cells a day in as many places as they can; women guard their few monthly self-cells, seeking just one man to father the child and stay by her. He can come and go, as it were, while she gets stuck with the results – life-long results. We can see how her need for support, and his need for assurance the babes are his, both work toward monogamy, but that monogamy itself can be seem like monotony.
Familiarity breeds contempt, yes, but familiarity can also breathe content. It depends on how people understand their mutual predicament. Can we admit marriage can become a bore and a chore, trying always to serve it, losing our soul as we go?
Something Else by Nin Andrews
“Sometimes you say I’m something else, and you mean I’m good, really good, but honey, don’t say that, please? Reminds me how my dad used to say, I’m just not myself today. As if here were some kind of imposter dad. Then he’d ask things like: Why don’t you go play with James? Has the dog had his walk yet? Will you kindly get out of my cotton-pickin’ hair? Sometimes he’d come home from work carrying his hat and a brown paper bag, and I’d know he wasn’t my dad… My mom often said he wasn’t the man she married. And I thought about that. How, when they were married, I wasn’t me, either. I wasn’t anyone. I didn’t like to dwell on that. It kind of gave me the creeps, but I liked to ask, Were you really in love then? Of course, she’d say. Did you hold hands? Yes. Kiss in public? Sit on his lap? Yes, yes, I did all that. Once She even showed me photos she kept in her lingerie drawer beneath her slips and silky things she never wore anymore: him in his spats and slick-shined hair, her in a pink crinoline cocktail dress with her long bangs clipped back in pearly barrettes. Not a thought in her head, except maybe Don’t I look swell? And Love me. And he did. Did he say so? He said it every day. He was something else back then.” (“Something Else” by Nin Andrews, from Southern Comfort. (c) Caran Kerry Press, 2009)
Love fades. Attraction leads to fulfillment, then emptiness often. The oxytocin serves our relatedness and family stability. It reduces cortisol, the wearing stress reaction chemical. But to be whole, we need some passion, some sizzle, some fun. I would not chase us because we are built this way. Rather than insult the Creator by saying we’re flawed, maybe our expectations of our relationships are flawed. And it’s not just sex that we want with others. Our romantic love life is part of what keeps us alive. Can we agree to help find it with each other? Can couples admit their attractions without cringing for fear of reprisals? Can we admit we need various kinds of persons at various times of our lives? Can fidelity to the other transcend the expectation of monogamy by the other? Can love of one’s spouse be so selfless as to be glad and supportive of their knowing occasional others, closer to a polyamorous ideal, more bonobo than chimp?
It depends on how honest and adventurous we are. This is largely influenced by the supportive culture around it and the norms and agreements of what is fair and loving and not. I’ve seen settings where hugs are given in every direction. Current couples get along easily with former lovers. Jealousy is admitted when needed, and held as need be, but a more generous ideal is admitted and attained. Other settings tolerate no hugs. Every hug is eyed suspiciously, cause for confrontation, ready to be riled. Attractions are not honored; they’re shamed, ridiculed, seen as failure, betrayal. Which sort of expectations did you come up with? Which would you like to continue with? Lest we be blinded by the narrow norms of our somewhat puritan culture, let us consider the mistress system in Europe and the wives-have-their-lovers system in South America, South India, and South China. In these cases, community cohesion and lack of violence prevail. In places were women are owned and repressed, stoned, whipped, burned, and shot, jealousy and righteousness ride rampage, blinding all understanding, compassion or love.
Sex was not the sin in the Garden, judgment was, and shame, blame and pain were the alienating consequences of forgetting the great good that God made for the shallow goods and evils of subtly deceiving moralists. Love and sex are not our fault; they are our origin and glory. I’m not for us breaking into a free-love frenzy. But I am for freeing love. Couples need not dissolve because of attractions, connections, and honesty. We can be with each other with all our fears and failures, and we can be with each other with all our daring wholeness and success. Who is to say? If we were to get out of the dominating, jealous, repressive style of the chimps, and into a more egalitarian, liberal, and communal style of the bonobo, what might come of it? We’re neither chimps nor bonobos, but of something akin to both. Being human is becoming aware of how love pervades our very existence, enlivening our private and communal souls. Can we be authentic, supporting each other as we go deeper than fear and reaction? Can familiarity breathe content? How to love more and be more loving?
Reverend Brad Carrier
For the Unitarian Universalists of Grants Pass
© February 14, 2010
digg
< Lifting the Leaf and Loving the Lovely Marriage, Gay Marriage and the Human Family >
Read More…
Looking for a specific article? View the complete listing of articles here on the Writings page, or try out the search box below. (coming soon)
Contribute
Contributions can be small or large; all are appreciated. We are not yet a 501 C-3 sanctioned organization. Your gift is just that – a gift, a contribution. I will not pester you for more and I will not ever release any information of visitors and contributors to this site. Please know it has taken me 15 years to migrate from full-time UU ministry towards full-time work for God’s Goods and Earthly Religion. Your participation and support is truly appreciated.
Most Recent Articles
• Global Warming Explained – 4 Good Resources
Friends know I’ve been spending lots of time learning about and addressing Global Warming. What is it? What to do? Here are my favorite sites for easy-to-picture, comprehensive, and reliable information. Click around on the many links in each for a fast and fun view of the slow and problematic predicament we’re in. You might want to visit and bookmark each now for easy reference later. From NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration): http://www.climate.gov/ From NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration); http://climate.nasa.gov/ The ... Read more →
• Father’s Day Interview
I was interviewed by my dear friend, Aletha Nowitzky, on her Saturday morning (10 – 11AM) radio show “Tasty Topics and Tantalizing Tunes” on KSKQ in Ashland, Oregon. (A low-power local station, but you can listen live on line.) She posted the show on their archive. Take a listen; it does a good job of exploring fatherhood, especially from my dad and for my three sons: http://www.kskq.org/index.php/145-tasty-topics-and-tantalizing-tunes/2048-tasty-topics-and-tantalizing-tunes-hosted-by-aletha-nowitzky-6-15-2013-an-innerview-with-ashland-dad-brad-carrier-in-honor-of-father-s-day (function() {var s = document.createElement('SCRIPT'), s1 = document.getElementsByTagName('SCRIPT')[0];s.type = 'text/javascript';s.async ... Read more →
• God’s Goods: Human and Natural
God’s Goods: Human and Natural I’m so glad you’ve invited me here today and that you’ve come. This brief sermon has been forty years in the making. They say preachers really only have one sermon that they then elaborate on. This is that one. It says what I most care about and intend to serve the rest of my life. I’ll be using some religious terms here. I hope and trust that doesn’t dissuade the more humanistic ... Read more →
Copyright 2011 EarthlyReligion.com | All Rights Reserved.
Site Designed by Rogue Easy Web | Articles RSS Feed
http://www.earthlyreligion.com/loving-more-and-more-loving/
Earthly Religion
Home
Writing
Calendar
Counseling
Links
Contribute
Contact
.
Welcome to Earthly Religion, the Internet presence of God’s Goods, a humanistic, naturalistic, deistic religion.
This religion does not expect you to believe in God, the Bible, or any particular religious authority. Rather, it places faith in our human prerogatives and abilities, our earth’s interrelated system of life, and the natural laws which allow security, ability, freedom, and ultimate meaning.
Both non-believers and believers are welcome here. The emphasis isn’t on believing; it’s on being and behaving, living well with yourself, each other, and life on earth.
The attention here is on the earthly. Supernatural speculations and possibilities are interesting but diverting. Our religious responsibility and opportunity is found in these bodies on this earth.
While we take our religious perspective and work seriously, we don’t want it to be stuffy. Too often, religions are alien to the human condition rather than affirming of it. We lean more towards the fun and sexy, natural and lively, human and humane.
Look through the essays, editorials, sermons, reviews, and blogs. You’ll find pertinent, provocative thinking towards a free, ethical, and healthy way of life. You may respond and participate. All sincere input is welcome; spam and hateful rants are trashed. As this site gains attention, participation, and contributions, it will grow to include and serve many worthy causes.
With your participation and support I will be more able to develop and apply the core ideas and values found here.
Most Recent Articles
• Global Warming Explained – 4 Good Resources
Friends know I’ve been spending lots of time learning about and addressing Global Warming. What is it? What to do? Here are my favorite sites for easy-to-picture, comprehensive, and reliable information. Click around on the many links in each for a fast and fun view of the slow and problematic predicament we’re in. You might want to visit and bookmark each now for easy reference later. From NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration): http://www.climate.gov/ From NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration); http://climate.nasa.gov/ The ... Read more →
• Father’s Day Interview
I was interviewed by my dear friend, Aletha Nowitzky, on her Saturday morning (10 – 11AM) radio show “Tasty Topics and Tantalizing Tunes” on KSKQ in Ashland, Oregon. (A low-power local station, but you can listen live on line.) She posted the show on their archive. Take a listen; it does a good job of exploring fatherhood, especially from my dad and for my three sons: http://www.kskq.org/index.php/145-tasty-topics-and-tantalizing-tunes/2048-tasty-topics-and-tantalizing-tunes-hosted-by-aletha-nowitzky-6-15-2013-an-innerview-with-ashland-dad-brad-carrier-in-honor-of-father-s-day Read more →
• God’s Goods: Human and Natural
God’s Goods: Human and Natural I’m so glad you’ve invited me here today and that you’ve come. This brief sermon has been forty years in the making. They say preachers really only have one sermon that they then elaborate on. This is that one. It says what I most care about and intend to serve the rest of my life. I’ll be using some religious terms here. I hope and trust that doesn’t dissuade the more humanistic ... Read more →
Copyright 2011 EarthlyReligion.com | All Rights Reserved.
Site Designed by Rogue Easy Web | Articles RSS Feed
http://www.earthlyreligion.com/
Earthly Religion
Home
Writing
Calendar
Counseling
Links
Contribute
Contact
.
Loving More and More Loving
“These things abide: faith, hope, and love, but the greatest of these is love.” (1 Cor. 13:13)
“Love, oh love, you crazy love.” Love is the cause and core of being human. Lusty love, luscious love, languid love, lively love, lovely love, we yearn for love, go wild in love, grow stale in love, grant our love, give it, get it, grasp it, lose it, find it, make it, grow it, get saved by it. Annoying love, obsessive love, exploring love, ignoring love, deploring love, exporting love, controlling love, embroiling love, confounding love, astounding love, compounding love, costly love, bossy love, lousy love, lonely love, atoning love, free love, more love – we humans know the risk, and yet we want it.
“The Greatest thing you’ll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return” (Eden Abez)
On this Valentine’s Day let us consider if we have learned this. How are we at love? It is so human to wonder and care and try and want and miss and hold. We are born of love, love of our parents, love of all our ancestors, love of life’s yearning for itself. How can we be better at love? As religious liberals allowed to honestly consider such topics, as Universalists seeking to love all as God loves all, we can ask in the most cosmic sense and the most intimate, how can we be loving more and be more loving? Love, the yearning to join and replicate, is built into the chemical bonds that make life. From crystals to amino acids to cells to organisms to animals to us, love builds us. From a crystal “wanting” to grow to our “wanting” another, love is built in, seeming to us as attraction, appreciation, and affection. Look at the animals. The birds grow close, share the nest, feed the chicks, and they send their dear ones off. The bull elks bash their heads together, striving with all they have to prevail in order to gain access to those juicy cows. Are not chemistry, bonding, contending and succeeding not part of what is in us?
I don’t want to commit “The Naturalistic Fallacy,” saying that nature’s patterns determine our human ways. We can do it differently if we want. In the afterward of the second edition of Dawkin’s Selfish Gene, he admits that though the worms he studied didn’t demonstrate altruism, we humans could decide to be more giving anyway. I think he was too reductionist. All kinds of cooperative and kind behaviors are also in nature and are built into us. Let’s not commit “The Naturalistic Fallacy Fallacy” either. Should we ignore all similar behaviors to us in the animals as if such tendencies had no influence in us at all?
For instance, we have long been told our closest animal is the chimp. Chimps have a social structure where big males jealously dominate smaller or weaker ones, and so keep more females for sexual partners and mothers. The females are mostly loyal, but they sometimes sneak out and mate with the bachelors in the bushes. We’re told we’re wicked for also being like this – jealous, domineering, sneaky, unfaithful. This is the sort of “animal behavior” we’re to acknowledge but overcome, cleaving to our one mate only and ever. Curiously, on the other side of the Congo River from the chimps, on the “left bank,” as it were, are the pigmy chimps. Physically, they look more human than chimps do. Look at their gait and mouth. These apes, also called the bonobos, are more matriarchal. The mother apes raise their babes served by the males and other females. The bonobos do a lot with sex. Lots of times every day they have short copulations with various males or sometimes females. The babes are right there to see all this, sometimes still clinging to the mother. Rewards are given and disputes are settled with quick promiscuous sex. The bonobos are more peaceful than the chimps. They’re the “free love” apes.
We humans share the same limb of the huge family tree with both the chimps and the bonobos. If chimps somehow justified or modeled domination, ownership, and war, would the bonobos legitimate communal respect, free love and peace? Somewhere between our ape-like beginnings and the first writings of history the creation myths I love so much arose. Curious that the affirmation of all nature, including us, including our sexuality, of Genesis One would be overshadowed by the Garden of Eden myth where the fall from innocent attunement was caused by judgment, and marked by shame, of sex.
‘Yes, we have no bonobos, we have no bonobos these days.’ Except, we do. There’s always been a free love aspect to the natural human community. Any honest telling of the Founding Fathers would show how practiced these guys were at trying to be fathers. But, their bold, humanistic faith in us as we are comes after a tortuous human diversion. Pre-agricultural humans are believed to have been more egalitarian. Not much hoarding when one’s people were mobile gatherers and hunters. It is only when settled populations start farming grain that women could be put to work processing it. Inequality of wealth led to power over others at home and war on the frontier. Wives were owned. They were a dependent breeding and working stock. Even into the industrial age, women were owned as wives (complete with a strict expectation of monogamy – to try to insure what is unsure) or used as slaves, servants, and prostitutes. Lovers there have always been, though, for not even the most vigilant dominate chimp or sultan succeeds in preventing flings and clandestine lovers.
No matter the rules, there’s a bit of bonobo in all of us. In our changing society women are no longer always kept. Independent income allows for independent choices. The great venture of democracy puts trust in us. As we lose the susceptibility to be told and bossed by a dominate male, be he pope, king, boss, or husband, and instead have trust in ourselves to fully be who we really are, other relationships will emerge. There are good reasons and rewards for living your life as “one man, one woman, one lifetime.” But putting all love in that container can keep it from flowing and growing.
If we consider how crucial love is in humans we see its larger scope and hope. Human babes are born far earlier than comparable mammals. Our babes are utterly dependent. They’re born early to get this marvelous big brain out without hurting the mother or infant. For months, we’re dependent on love. We need milk and touch and eye contact and soothing sounds and warm embrace. Babes who don’t get that just wither and die, or maybe they persist in life, lacking in essential assurance and safety. We’re born dependent and we die dependent; we’re held, wiped, fed. In between we learn to be dependable, independent, and interdependent. The mammalian bond of love, touch, and play isn’t just for kittens and babies. Our reliable mutuality informs every stage and phase of human activity and community. Love is not just as the brief spurt of pleasure during sex; it is life-long in every direction. Love influences every aspect of human community. Where it is present and practiced, we flourish. Where it is absent and mocked, we wither.
How can we love more and be more loving? From sex to infant to child to sibling to student to lover to worker to parent to relations to country to world – how can we notice the love that nurtures us and make the ways to give it back? How do we be more universalistic, expanding both the breadth and depth of love in our lives, for those farthest from us to closest, to us inside, how do we find the ways to both love more and be more loving?
“Monogamy,” to alter Winston Churchill’s quote on democracy, “is the worst form of relationship, except for all the others.” We praise and impose monogamy as being synonymous with fidelity, as if it shows and grows love. However, I would assert that fidelity transcends monogamy. We are faithful to being there for the other person as they are and become, for better or worse, not making our love contingent on whether they ever love another. We don’t expect parents to love only one child, or children to love only one parent. We don’t assume all our needs will be magically met by only one person. Monogamy makes a lot of sense when the couple is of breeding age. Beyond that, there is more leeway for having various forms of love in addition to the primary relationship.
Some people even envision new sorts of families, where three or more could “marry.” The UUPA community holds a strong value in open, honest, acknowledged multi-partner love lives. This is not betrayal, for it is open and agreed to, with secondary partners needing the consent of primary ones. They try to maintain their primary love while also loving more. They wish to come to church as a sanctioned unit, not hide their dear ones in shame. It is a new coming out, testing our tolerance and understanding in unfamiliar ways. This seems risky and prone to upheaval, both for the people who wish to pursue this and for those around them. But consider the fragmented and then healed nature of many of our families now. Instead of merely “my X” as the result of a rancorous separation, various parents tend to their offspring and continue caring for their former spouses for their whole lives. Family exists across the marriages. It needn’t be trouble persisting. Children can know their blood parents, not just their step parents. Former spouses can care for each other in ways they never knew before. Family transcends and enfolds various marriages.
We romanticize life-long monogamous relations. We claim models in the animal world, but on closer examination find that hanky panky goes on. A tenth to almost a third of some birds are sired by other than the primary social mate. DNA testing on supposedly monogamous couples shows some two to three percent of the offspring are sired by someone else than the apparent husband. While over half of men (towards 70%) stray at least once during a marriage, almost as many women do too (30% – 60%). Sometimes the most apparently devoted wives have sudden flings with macho sorts of men. Usually, revelation of such extra-marital affairs is met with great upheaval, accusation, hurt, retaliation and assumed divorce. It need not be so if we seek a more informed and compassionate understanding.
Without being reductionist, we can see how our chemistry challenges our love. Testosterone drives sex in men, and to a lesser extent, in women. When a man is successful, admired and moneyed his testosterone goes up. Women are keyed into this, for mating upward in social status is inherent in both animal and human populations. They get excited by status and swagger, especially during the ovulation portion of their monthly cycle. Meanwhile, the thrill of initial love, with its attendant spike in dopamine, has waned for both husband and wife. The thrill of sex or romantic attraction creates and then resides in the oxytocin of comfy connectedness. This bonding agent, high between mother and newborn, is high also in stable couples. High, but dull. Attraction turns to exhaustion. Men shoot hundreds of millions of self-cells a day in as many places as they can; women guard their few monthly self-cells, seeking just one man to father the child and stay by her. He can come and go, as it were, while she gets stuck with the results – life-long results. We can see how her need for support, and his need for assurance the babes are his, both work toward monogamy, but that monogamy itself can be seem like monotony.
Familiarity breeds contempt, yes, but familiarity can also breathe content. It depends on how people understand their mutual predicament. Can we admit marriage can become a bore and a chore, trying always to serve it, losing our soul as we go?
Something Else by Nin Andrews
“Sometimes you say I’m something else, and you mean I’m good, really good, but honey, don’t say that, please? Reminds me how my dad used to say, I’m just not myself today. As if here were some kind of imposter dad. Then he’d ask things like: Why don’t you go play with James? Has the dog had his walk yet? Will you kindly get out of my cotton-pickin’ hair? Sometimes he’d come home from work carrying his hat and a brown paper bag, and I’d know he wasn’t my dad… My mom often said he wasn’t the man she married. And I thought about that. How, when they were married, I wasn’t me, either. I wasn’t anyone. I didn’t like to dwell on that. It kind of gave me the creeps, but I liked to ask, Were you really in love then? Of course, she’d say. Did you hold hands? Yes. Kiss in public? Sit on his lap? Yes, yes, I did all that. Once She even showed me photos she kept in her lingerie drawer beneath her slips and silky things she never wore anymore: him in his spats and slick-shined hair, her in a pink crinoline cocktail dress with her long bangs clipped back in pearly barrettes. Not a thought in her head, except maybe Don’t I look swell? And Love me. And he did. Did he say so? He said it every day. He was something else back then.” (“Something Else” by Nin Andrews, from Southern Comfort. (c) Caran Kerry Press, 2009)
Love fades. Attraction leads to fulfillment, then emptiness often. The oxytocin serves our relatedness and family stability. It reduces cortisol, the wearing stress reaction chemical. But to be whole, we need some passion, some sizzle, some fun. I would not chase us because we are built this way. Rather than insult the Creator by saying we’re flawed, maybe our expectations of our relationships are flawed. And it’s not just sex that we want with others. Our romantic love life is part of what keeps us alive. Can we agree to help find it with each other? Can couples admit their attractions without cringing for fear of reprisals? Can we admit we need various kinds of persons at various times of our lives? Can fidelity to the other transcend the expectation of monogamy by the other? Can love of one’s spouse be so selfless as to be glad and supportive of their knowing occasional others, closer to a polyamorous ideal, more bonobo than chimp?
It depends on how honest and adventurous we are. This is largely influenced by the supportive culture around it and the norms and agreements of what is fair and loving and not. I’ve seen settings where hugs are given in every direction. Current couples get along easily with former lovers. Jealousy is admitted when needed, and held as need be, but a more generous ideal is admitted and attained. Other settings tolerate no hugs. Every hug is eyed suspiciously, cause for confrontation, ready to be riled. Attractions are not honored; they’re shamed, ridiculed, seen as failure, betrayal. Which sort of expectations did you come up with? Which would you like to continue with? Lest we be blinded by the narrow norms of our somewhat puritan culture, let us consider the mistress system in Europe and the wives-have-their-lovers system in South America, South India, and South China. In these cases, community cohesion and lack of violence prevail. In places were women are owned and repressed, stoned, whipped, burned, and shot, jealousy and righteousness ride rampage, blinding all understanding, compassion or love.
Sex was not the sin in the Garden, judgment was, and shame, blame and pain were the alienating consequences of forgetting the great good that God made for the shallow goods and evils of subtly deceiving moralists. Love and sex are not our fault; they are our origin and glory. I’m not for us breaking into a free-love frenzy. But I am for freeing love. Couples need not dissolve because of attractions, connections, and honesty. We can be with each other with all our fears and failures, and we can be with each other with all our daring wholeness and success. Who is to say? If we were to get out of the dominating, jealous, repressive style of the chimps, and into a more egalitarian, liberal, and communal style of the bonobo, what might come of it? We’re neither chimps nor bonobos, but of something akin to both. Being human is becoming aware of how love pervades our very existence, enlivening our private and communal souls. Can we be authentic, supporting each other as we go deeper than fear and reaction? Can familiarity breathe content? How to love more and be more loving?
Reverend Brad Carrier
For the Unitarian Universalists of Grants Pass
© February 14, 2010
digg
< Lifting the Leaf and Loving the Lovely Marriage, Gay Marriage and the Human Family >
Read More…
Looking for a specific article? View the complete listing of articles here on the Writings page, or try out the search box below. (coming soon)
Contribute
Contributions can be small or large; all are appreciated. We are not yet a 501 C-3 sanctioned organization. Your gift is just that – a gift, a contribution. I will not pester you for more and I will not ever release any information of visitors and contributors to this site. Please know it has taken me 15 years to migrate from full-time UU ministry towards full-time work for God’s Goods and Earthly Religion. Your participation and support is truly appreciated.
Most Recent Articles
• Global Warming Explained – 4 Good Resources
Friends know I’ve been spending lots of time learning about and addressing Global Warming. What is it? What to do? Here are my favorite sites for easy-to-picture, comprehensive, and reliable information. Click around on the many links in each for a fast and fun view of the slow and problematic predicament we’re in. You might want to visit and bookmark each now for easy reference later. From NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration): http://www.climate.gov/ From NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration); http://climate.nasa.gov/ The ... Read more →
• Father’s Day Interview
I was interviewed by my dear friend, Aletha Nowitzky, on her Saturday morning (10 – 11AM) radio show “Tasty Topics and Tantalizing Tunes” on KSKQ in Ashland, Oregon. (A low-power local station, but you can listen live on line.) She posted the show on their archive. Take a listen; it does a good job of exploring fatherhood, especially from my dad and for my three sons: http://www.kskq.org/index.php/145-tasty-topics-and-tantalizing-tunes/2048-tasty-topics-and-tantalizing-tunes-hosted-by-aletha-nowitzky-6-15-2013-an-innerview-with-ashland-dad-brad-carrier-in-honor-of-father-s-day (function() {var s = document.createElement('SCRIPT'), s1 = document.getElementsByTagName('SCRIPT')[0];s.type = 'text/javascript';s.async ... Read more →
• God’s Goods: Human and Natural
God’s Goods: Human and Natural I’m so glad you’ve invited me here today and that you’ve come. This brief sermon has been forty years in the making. They say preachers really only have one sermon that they then elaborate on. This is that one. It says what I most care about and intend to serve the rest of my life. I’ll be using some religious terms here. I hope and trust that doesn’t dissuade the more humanistic ... Read more →
Copyright 2011 EarthlyReligion.com | All Rights Reserved.
Site Designed by Rogue Easy Web | Articles RSS Feed
http://www.earthlyreligion.com/loving-more-and-more-loving/
Earthly Religion
Home
Writing
Calendar
Counseling
Links
Contribute
Contact
.
Welcome to Earthly Religion, the Internet presence of God’s Goods, a humanistic, naturalistic, deistic religion.
This religion does not expect you to believe in God, the Bible, or any particular religious authority. Rather, it places faith in our human prerogatives and abilities, our earth’s interrelated system of life, and the natural laws which allow security, ability, freedom, and ultimate meaning.
Both non-believers and believers are welcome here. The emphasis isn’t on believing; it’s on being and behaving, living well with yourself, each other, and life on earth.
The attention here is on the earthly. Supernatural speculations and possibilities are interesting but diverting. Our religious responsibility and opportunity is found in these bodies on this earth.
While we take our religious perspective and work seriously, we don’t want it to be stuffy. Too often, religions are alien to the human condition rather than affirming of it. We lean more towards the fun and sexy, natural and lively, human and humane.
Look through the essays, editorials, sermons, reviews, and blogs. You’ll find pertinent, provocative thinking towards a free, ethical, and healthy way of life. You may respond and participate. All sincere input is welcome; spam and hateful rants are trashed. As this site gains attention, participation, and contributions, it will grow to include and serve many worthy causes.
With your participation and support I will be more able to develop and apply the core ideas and values found here.
Most Recent Articles
• Global Warming Explained – 4 Good Resources
Friends know I’ve been spending lots of time learning about and addressing Global Warming. What is it? What to do? Here are my favorite sites for easy-to-picture, comprehensive, and reliable information. Click around on the many links in each for a fast and fun view of the slow and problematic predicament we’re in. You might want to visit and bookmark each now for easy reference later. From NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration): http://www.climate.gov/ From NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration); http://climate.nasa.gov/ The ... Read more →
• Father’s Day Interview
I was interviewed by my dear friend, Aletha Nowitzky, on her Saturday morning (10 – 11AM) radio show “Tasty Topics and Tantalizing Tunes” on KSKQ in Ashland, Oregon. (A low-power local station, but you can listen live on line.) She posted the show on their archive. Take a listen; it does a good job of exploring fatherhood, especially from my dad and for my three sons: http://www.kskq.org/index.php/145-tasty-topics-and-tantalizing-tunes/2048-tasty-topics-and-tantalizing-tunes-hosted-by-aletha-nowitzky-6-15-2013-an-innerview-with-ashland-dad-brad-carrier-in-honor-of-father-s-day Read more →
• God’s Goods: Human and Natural
God’s Goods: Human and Natural I’m so glad you’ve invited me here today and that you’ve come. This brief sermon has been forty years in the making. They say preachers really only have one sermon that they then elaborate on. This is that one. It says what I most care about and intend to serve the rest of my life. I’ll be using some religious terms here. I hope and trust that doesn’t dissuade the more humanistic ... Read more →
Copyright 2011 EarthlyReligion.com | All Rights Reserved.
Site Designed by Rogue Easy Web | Articles RSS Feed
http://www.earthlyreligion.com/
UU Historical Society-wrong results
uuhs.org This domain has expired. Is this your domain? Renew Now
uuhs.org - This Domain registered at Directnic.
Privacy Policy
uuhs.org This domain has expired. Is this your domain? Renew Now
uuhs.org - This Domain registered at Directnic.
Privacy Policy
uuhs.org This domain has expired. Is this your domain? Renew Now
uuhs.org - This Domain registered at Directnic.
Privacy Policy
uuhs.org This domain has expired. Is this your domain? Renew Now
uuhs.org - This Domain registered at Directnic.
Privacy Policy
Being a former member of the Unitarian-Universalist Church, my experience with Unitarian-Universalism was mostly positive. I think that they should update their historical records. The UUHS is a helpful organization in it's own way to learn about the UU Church, Orthodox Unitarianism and Orthodox Universalism.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
War of the Worlds novel and War of the Worlds 1953 film Wikipedia pages
The War of the Worlds
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see The War of the Worlds (disambiguation).
The War of the Worlds
The War of the Worlds first edition.jpg
Cover of the first edition
Author
H. G. Wells
Country
England
Language
English
Genre
Science fiction novel
Publisher
William Heinemann
Publication date
1898[1]
Media type
Print (Hardcover & Paperback) & E-book
Pages
303 pg
ISBN
N/A
Text
The War of the Worlds at Wikisource
The War of the Worlds is a military science fiction novel by English author H. G. Wells. It first appeared in serialized form in 1897, published simultaneously in Pearson's Magazine in the UK and Cosmopolitan magazine in the US. The first appearance in book form was published by William Heinemann of London in 1898. It is the first-person narrative of the adventures of an unnamed protagonist and his brother in Surrey and London as Earth is invaded by Martians. Written between 1895 and 1897,[2] it is one of the earliest stories that detail a conflict between mankind and an extraterrestrial race.[3] The novel is one of the most commented-on works in the science fiction canon.[4]
The War of the Worlds has two parts, Book One: The Coming of the Martians and Book Two: The Earth under the Martians. The narrator, a philosophically-inclined author, struggles to return to his wife while seeing the Martians lay waste to southern England. Book One also imparts the experience of his brother, also unnamed, who describes events in the capital and escapes the Martians by boarding a ship near Tillingham, on the Essex coast.
The plot has been related to invasion literature of the time. The novel has been variously interpreted as a commentary on evolutionary theory, British Imperialism, and generally Victorian superstitions, fears and prejudices. At the time of publication it was classified as a scientific romance, like his earlier novel The Time Machine. The War of the Worlds has been both popular (having never gone out of print) and influential, spawning half a dozen feature films, radio dramas, a record album, various comic book adaptations, a television series, and sequels or parallel stories by other authors. It has even influenced the work of scientists, notably Robert Hutchings Goddard.[5][6]
Contents [hide]
1 Plot 1.1 The Coming of the Martians
1.2 The Earth Under the Martians
2 Style
3 Scientific setting
4 Physical location
5 Cultural setting
6 Publication
7 Reception
8 Relation to invasion literature
9 Scientific predictions and accuracy 9.1 Mars
9.2 Space travel
9.3 Total war
9.4 Weapons and armour
9.5 Ecology
10 Interpretations 10.1 Natural selection
10.2 Human evolution
10.3 Colonialism and imperialism
10.4 Social Darwinism
10.5 Religion and science
11 Influences 11.1 Mars and Martians
11.2 Aliens and alien invasion 11.2.1 Antecedents
11.2.2 Early examples of influence on science fiction
11.2.3 Later examples
11.3 Tripods
12 Adaptations
13 See also
14 References
15 Bibliography
16 External links
Plot[edit]
Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us.
— H. G. Wells (1898), The War of the Worlds
The Coming of the Martians[edit]
The narrative opens in an astronomical observatory at Ottershaw where explosions are seen on the surface of the planet Mars, creating much interest in the scientific community. Later a "meteor" lands on Horsell Common, near the narrator's home in Woking, Surrey. He is among the first to discover that the object is an artificial cylinder that opens, disgorging Martians who are "big" and "greyish" with "oily brown skin," "the size, perhaps, of a bear," with "two large dark-coloured eyes," and a lipless "V-shaped mouth" surrounded by "Gorgon groups of tentacles." The narrator finds them "at once vital, intense, inhuman, crippled and monstrous."[7] They briefly emerge, have difficulty in coping with the Earth's atmosphere, and rapidly retreat into the cylinder. A human deputation (which includes the astronomer Ogilvy) approaches the cylinder with a white flag, but the Martians incinerate them and others nearby with a heat-ray before beginning to assemble their machinery. Military forces arrive that night to surround the common, including Maxim guns. The population of Woking and the surrounding villages are reassured by the presence of the military. A tense day begins, with much anticipation of military action by the narrator.
An army of Martian fighting-machines destroying England.
After heavy firing from the common and damage to the town from the heat-ray which suddenly erupts in the late afternoon, the narrator takes his wife to safety in nearby Leatherhead, where his cousin lives, and then returns to Woking during a violent thunderstorm in the early hours of the morning. On the road during the height of the storm he has his first sight of a Martian War Machine. In panic, he crashes his borrowed carriage and barely escapes detection. He discovers the Martians have assembled towering three-legged "fighting-machines" (Tripods), each armed with a heat-ray and a chemical weapon: the so-called "black smoke". These Tripods have wiped out the army units positioned around the cylinder and attacked and destroyed most of Woking. Sheltering in his house, the narrator sees a fleeing artilleryman moving through the garden, who tells him his experiences and mentions that another cylinder has landed between Woking and Leatherhead, cutting the narrator off from his wife. The two try to escape via Byfleet just after dawn, but are separated at the Shepperton to Weybridge Ferry during a Martian attack on Shepperton in the afternoon. One of the Martian fighting machines is brought down in the River Thames by Artillery as the narrator and countless others try to cross the river into Middlesex, while the Martians retreat back to their original crater. This gives the authorities precious hours to form a defence-line covering London. After the Martian's temporary repulse, the narrator is able to float down the Thames toward London in a boat, stopping at Walton, where he first encounters the Curate, his companion for the next weeks.
A Martian fighting-machine battling with HMS Thunder Child
Towards dusk the Martians renew their offensive, and break through the defence-line of siege and field artillery centred on Richmond Hill and Kingston Hill by a widespread bombardment of the Black smoke, and a mass exodus of the population of London begins. This includes the narrator's brother, who flees to the Essex coast after the sudden, panicked predawn order to evacuate London is given by the authorities, a terrifying and harrowing journey of three days, amongst millions of similar refugees streaming from London. He encounters Mrs. Elphinstone and her younger sister-in-law, just in time to help them fend off a gang of ruffians who are trying to rob them. The three continue on together. Mrs. Elphinstone's husband is missing, and his fate is never learned. After a terrifying struggle through a mass of refugees on the road at Barnet, they head eastward. Two days later, at Chelmsford, their pony is confiscated for food by the local Committee of Public Supply. They press on to Tillingham and the sea. There, they manage to buy passage to the Continent from a small Paddle steamer, part of a vast throng of shipping gathered off the Essex coast to evacuate refugees. The torpedo ram HMS Thunder Child destroys two attacking tripods before being sunk by the Martians, though this allows the evacuation fleet, including the ship carrying the narrator's brother and his two travelling companions, to escape to the continent. Shortly after, all organised resistance has ceased, and the Martians roam the shattered landscape unhindered.
The Earth Under the Martians[edit]
At the beginning of Book Two, the narrator and the curate are plundering houses in search of food. During this excursion, the men witness a Martian fighting-machine enter Kew and use neither its heat-ray nor the Black Smoke, instead picking up any person it finds and tossing them into a "great metallic carrier which projected behind him, much as a workman's basket hangs over his shoulder." [8] It is at this moment that the narrator first realises that the Martian invaders may have a purpose other than destruction,[8] as all previous encounters with the aliens and the ensuing mass destruction would suggest. While hiding at a house in Sheen to allow the curate to rest, "a blinding glare of green light" and a loud concussion signal the arrival of the fifth Martian cylinder.[8] The cylinder smashes into the house in which the men hide, and both are trapped beneath the ruins for nearly two weeks. The curate, traumatised by the invasion, sees the Martian creatures as heralding the advent of the Apocalypse. The narrator's relations with the curate deteriorate, and he eventually knocks him unconscious to prevent his loud ranting. The curate has already been overheard by a Martian, who captures him with a prehensile tentacle and, the reader is led to believe, drains him of his blood, blood transfusion being the Martians' form of nourishment. The narrator escapes detection by hiding in the coal-cellar.
The Martians eventually abandon the much excavated cylinder crater, and the narrator is able to head towards West London. He finds abundant growth of red weed, a Martian form of vegetation, spreading with extraordinary rapidity over the landscape wherever there is abundant water. On Putney Heath, he once again encounters the artilleryman, who briefly persuades him to cooperate in a grandiose plan to rebuild civilisation underground. But after a few hours the narrator perceives the lunacy of this plan and the overall laziness of his companion and abandons the artilleryman to his delusions. Heading into a deserted London, he is at the point of despair and attempts to commit suicide by openly approaching a stationary war machine, when he discovers that the invaders have died from microbial infections to which they had no immunity, since "there are no bacteria in Mars."[9] The narrator realises with joy that the threat has been vanquished. The narrator suffers a brief but complete nervous breakdown of which he remembers nothing. He is nursed back to health by a kind family, and returns home to find his wife, whom he had given up for dead. The last chapter, entitled "Epilogue," reflects on the significance of the invasion and the "abiding sense of doubt and insecurity" that it has left in the narrator's mind.
Style[edit]
The War of the Worlds presents itself as a factual account of the Martian invasion. The narrator is a middle-class writer of philosophical papers, somewhat reminiscent of Doctor Kemp in The Invisible Man, with characteristics similar to Wells's at the time of writing. The reader learns very little about the background of the narrator or indeed of anyone else in the novel; characterisation is unimportant. In fact, none of the principal characters are named.[10]
Scientific setting[edit]
Wells trained as a science teacher during the latter half of the 1880s. One of his teachers was T. H. Huxley, famous as a major advocate of Darwinism. He later taught science, and his first book was a biology textbook. He joined the scientific journal Nature as a reviewer in 1894.[11][12] Much of his work is notable for making contemporary ideas of science and technology easily understandable to readers.[13]
The scientific fascinations of the novel are established in the opening chapter, where the narrator views Mars through a telescope, and Wells offers the image of the superior Martians having observed human affairs, as though watching tiny organisms through a microscope. Ironically, it is microscopic Earth lifeforms that finally prove deadly to the invasion force.[14] In 1894 a French astronomer observed a 'strange light' on Mars, and published his findings in the scientific journal Nature on 2 August of that year. Wells used this observation to open the novel, imagining these lights to be the launching of the Martian cylinders towards Earth. American astronomer Percival Lowell published the book Mars in 1895, suggesting features of the planet’s surface observed through telescopes might be canals. He speculated that these might be irrigation channels constructed by a sentient life form to support existence on an arid, dying world, similar to that Wells suggests the Martians have left behind.[10][15] The novel also presents ideas related to Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, both in specific ideas discussed by the narrator, and themes explored by the story.
Wells also wrote an essay titled 'Intelligence on Mars', published in 1896 in the Saturday Review, which sets out many of the ideas for the Martians and their planet that are used almost unchanged in The War of the Worlds.[10] In the essay he speculates about the nature of the Martian inhabitants and how their evolutionary progress might compare to humans. He also suggests that Mars, being an older world than the Earth, might have become frozen and desolate, conditions that might encourage the Martians to find another planet on which to settle.[16]
Physical location[edit]
'The Martian' in Woking.
In 1895, Wells was an established writer and he married his second wife, Catherine Robbins, moving with her to the town of Woking in Surrey. Here he spent his mornings walking or cycling in the surrounding countryside, and his afternoons writing. The original idea for The War of the Worlds came from his brother, during one of these walks, pondering on what it might be like if alien beings were suddenly to descend on the scene and start attacking its inhabitants.[17]
Much of The War of the Worlds takes place around Woking and nearby suburbs. The initial landing site of the Martian invasion force, Horsell Common, was an open area close to Wells's home. In the preface to the Atlantic edition of the novel, he wrote of his pleasure in riding a bicycle around the area, and imagining the destruction of cottages and houses he saw, by the Martian heat-ray or the red weed.[10] While writing the novel, Wells enjoyed shocking his friends by revealing details of the story, and how it was bringing total destruction to parts of the South London landscape that were familiar to them. The characters of the artilleryman, the curate and the medical student were also based on acquaintances in Woking and Surrey.[18]
In the present day, a 7 metre (23 feet) high sculpture of a tripod fighting machine, entitled 'The Martian', based on the description in The War of the Worlds, stands in Crown Passage, close to the local railway station, in Woking, designed and constructed by artist Michael Condron.[19]
Cultural setting[edit]
His depiction of suburban late Victorian culture in the novel, was an accurate reflection of his own experiences at the time of writing.[20] In the late 19th Century the British Empire was the predominant colonial and naval power on the globe, making its domestic heart a poignant and terrifying starting point for an invasion by aliens with their own imperialist agenda.[21] He also drew upon a common fear which had emerged in the years approaching the turn of the century, known at the time as Fin de siècle or 'end of the age', which anticipated apocalypse at midnight on the last day of 1899.[18]
Publication[edit]
In the late 1890s it was common for novels, prior to full volume publication, to be serialised in magazines or newspapers, with each part of the serialisation ending upon a cliff hanger to entice audiences to buy the next edition. This is a practice familiar from the first publication of Charles Dickens' novels in the nineteenth century. The War of the Worlds was first published in serial form in Pearson's Magazine in 1897.[22] Wells was paid ₤200 and Pearsons demanded to know the ending of the piece before committing to publish.[23]
The complete volume was published by William Heinemann in 1898 and has been in print ever since.
Two unauthorised serialisations of the novel were published in the United States prior to the publication of the novel. The first was published in the New York Evening Journal between December 1897 and January 1898. The story was published as Fighters from Mars or the War of the Worlds. It changed the location of the story to a New York setting.[24] The second version changed the story to have the Martians landing in the area near and around Boston, and was published by the Boston Post in 1898, which Wells protested against. It was called Fighters from Mars, or the War of the Worlds in and near Boston.[11] Both pirated versions of the story were followed by Edison's Conquest of Mars by Garrett P. Serviss. Even though these version are deemed as unauthorised serialisations of the novel it is possible that H. G. Wells may have, without realising, agreed to the serialisation in the New York Evening Journal.[25]
Reception[edit]
The War of the Worlds was generally received very favourably by both readers and critics upon its publication. There was however some criticism of the brutal nature of the events in the narrative.[26]
Relation to invasion literature[edit]
The Battle of Dorking front cover
Between 1871 and 1914 over 60 works of fiction for adult readers describing invasions of Great Britain were published. The seminal work was The Battle of Dorking (1871) by George Tomkyns Chesney, an army officer. The book portrays a surprise German attack, with a landing on the South coast of England, made possible by the distraction of the Royal Navy in colonial patrols and the army in an Irish insurrection. The German army makes short work of English militia and rapidly marches to London. The story was published in Blackwood's Magazine in May 1871, and so popular that it was reprinted a month later as a pamphlet which sold 80,000 copies.[27][28]
The appearance of this literature reflected the increasing feeling of anxiety and insecurity as international tensions between European Imperial powers escalated towards the outbreak of the First World War. Across the decades, the nationality of the invaders tended to vary, according to the most acutely perceived threat at the time. In the 1870s, the Germans were the most common invaders. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, a period of strain on Anglo-French relations, and the signing of a treaty between France and Russia, the French became the more common menace.[27][28]
There are a number of plot similarities between Wells's book and The Battle of Dorking. In both books, a ruthless enemy makes a devastating surprise attack, with the British armed forces helpless to stop its relentless advance and both involve the destruction of the Home Counties of southern England.[28] However, The War of the Worlds transcends the typical fascination of Invasion Literature with European politics, the suitability of contemporary military technology to deal with the armed forces of other nations, and international disputes, with its introduction of an alien adversary.[29]
Although much of Invasion Literature may have been less sophisticated and visionary than Wells's novel, it was a useful, familiar genre to support the publication success of the piece, attracting readers used to such tales. It may also have proved an important foundation for Wells's ideas, as he had never seen or fought in a war.[30]
Scientific predictions and accuracy[edit]
Mars[edit]
Martian canals depicted by Percival Lowell.
The arid, lifeless surface of Mars as seen by the Viking Probe.
Many novels focusing on life on other planets written close to 1900 echo scientific ideas of the time, including Pierre-Simon Laplace's nebular hypothesis, Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, and Gustav Kirchhoff's theory of Spectroscopy. These scientific ideas combined to present the possibility that planets are alike in composition and conditions for the development of species, which would likely lead to the emergence of life at a suitable geological age in a planet's development.[31]
By the time Wells came to write The War of the Worlds, there had been three centuries of observation of Mars through telescopes. Galileo, in 1610, observed the planet's phases and in 1666 Giovanni Cassini identified the polar ice caps.[15] In 1878, Italian astronomer, Giovanni Schiaparelli observed geological features which he called canali (Italian for "channels"). This was mistranslated into English as "canals" which, being artificial watercourses, fuelled the belief that there was some sort of intelligent extraterrestrial life on the planet. This further influenced American astronomer Percival Lowell.[32]
In 1895 Lowell published a book entitled Mars which speculated about an arid, dying landscape, whose inhabitants had been forced to build canals thousands of miles long to bring water from the polar caps to irrigate the remaining arable land. This formed the most advanced scientific ideas about the conditions on the red planet available to Wells at the time War of the Worlds was written. The concept of canals with flowing water was later proved erroneous by more accurate observation of the planet, and later landings by Russian and American probes such as the two Viking missions which found a lifeless world too cold for water to exist in its liquid state.[15]
Space travel[edit]
The Martians travel to the Earth in cylinders, apparently fired from a huge space gun on the surface of Mars. This was a common representation of space travel in the nineteenth century, and had also been used by Jules Verne in From the Earth to the Moon. Modern scientific understanding renders this idea impractical, as it would be difficult to control the trajectory of the gun precisely, and the force of the explosion necessary to propel the cylinder from the Martian surface to the Earth would likely kill the occupants.[33]
However, the 16 year old Robert H. Goddard was inspired by the story and spent much of his life inventing rockets.[5][6] The research into rockets begun by Goddard eventually culminated in the Apollo program's manned landing on the moon.
Total war[edit]
London during 'The Blitz' in World War II.
The Martian invasion proceeds with total disregard for human life; attacks on people and their environment are conducted with the heat-ray, with poisonous gas, the Black Smoke, delivered by rockets, and the Red Weed. These weapons brought almost total destruction to the capital of the British Empire and its surrounding counties. It also involves the strategic destruction of infrastructure such as armament stores, railways and telegraph lines. It appears to be intended to cause maximum casualties, terrorising and leaving humans without any will to resist. These tactics became more common as the 20th century progressed, particularly from the 1930s with the development of mobile weapons and technology capable of 'surgical strikes' on key military and civilian targets.[34]
Wells's vision of a war bringing total destruction without moral limitations in The War of the Worlds were not taken seriously by readers at the time of publication. It was seen as one of a number of fictions which proposed this idea. He later expanded these ideas with more realistic novels such as When the Sleeper Wakes (1899), The War in the Air (1908) and The World Set Free (1914). This kind of 'total war' did not become fully realised until the Second World War, with the terrorising and evacuation of entire civilian populations, and the annihilation of cities.[35]
As noted by Howard Black, "(...) In concrete details, the Martian Fighting Machines as depicted by Wells have nothing in common with tanks or dive bombers - but the tactical and strategic use made of them is strikingly reminiscent of Blitzkrieg as it would be developed by the German armed forces four decades later. The description of the Martians advancing inexorably, at lightning speed, towards London; the British Army completely unable to put up an effective resistance; the British government disintegrating and evacuating the capital; the mass of terrified refugees clogging the roads - all were to be precisely enacted in real life at 1940 France.(...) Ironically, this 1898 prediction came far closer to the actual land fighting of WWII than Wells did much later, much closer to the actual war, in the 1934 "The Shape of Things to Come".[36]
Weapons and armour[edit]
Wells's description of chemical weapons – the Black Smoke used by the Martian fighting machines to murder human beings in great numbers – was later a reality during the First World War, with the use of Mustard Gas.[22] The Heat-Ray, used by the Martians to annihilate nineteenth century military technology, and cause widespread devastation, is a precursor to the concept of laser weaponry, now widely familiar. Comparison between lasers and the Heat-Ray was made as early as the later half of the 1950s when lasers were still in development. Prototypes of mobile laser weapons have been developed and it is now being researched and tested as a possible future weapon in space.[34]
Military theorists of the era, including the Royal Navy prior to the First World War, had speculated about building a "fighting-machine" or a "land dreadnought". Wells later further explored the ideas of an armoured fighting vehicle in his short story "The Land Ironclads".[37] There is a high level of science-fiction abstraction in Wells's description of Martian automotive technology; he stresses how Martian machinery is devoid of wheels, using the "muscle-like" contractions of metal discs along an axis to produce movement. However, the electroactive polymers currently being developed for use in sensors and robotic actuators are actually a close match for Wells' description.
Ecology[edit]
Main article: Interplanetary contamination
Kudzu, an introduced species in the United States, is difficult to control.
Wells's dramatisation of an ecological threat posed by a rapidly growing alien organism, the Red Weed, which spreads over the English landscape, also has parallels in more modern times. Non-native species such as rabbits, foxes and prickly pear have been introduced into the Australian landscape, with a devastating impact. Another example is the spread of Kudzu in the United States.[22] In Ireland and the United Kingdom, Japanese knotweed has become an invasive species. It was introduced in the 19th century.[38] However, these species were not introduced with the intention of causing deliberate harm.
Interpretations[edit]
Wells's Mentor, Darwinist advocate T. H. Huxley.
Natural selection[edit]
H.G. Wells was a student of Thomas Henry Huxley, a proponent of the theory of natural selection.[39] In the novel, the conflict between mankind and the Martians is portrayed as a survival of the fittest, with the Martians whose longer period of successful evolution on the older Mars, has led to them developing a superior intelligence, able to create weapons far in advance of humans on the younger planet Earth, who have not had the opportunity to develop sufficient intelligence to construct similar weapons.[39]
Human evolution[edit]
The novel also suggests a potential future for human evolution and perhaps a warning against overvaluing intelligence against more human qualities. The Narrator describes the Martians as having evolved an overdeveloped brain, which has left them with cumbersome bodies, with increased intelligence, but a diminished ability to use their emotions, something Wells attributes to bodily function. The Narrator refers to an 1893 publication suggesting that the evolution of the human brain might outstrip the development of the body, and organs such as the stomach, nose, teeth and hair would wither, leaving humans as thinking machines, needing mechanical devices much like the Tripod fighting machines, to be able to interact with their environment. This publication is probably Wells's own "The Man of the Year Million", published in the Pall Mall Gazette on November 6, 1893, which suggests similar ideas.[40][41]
Colonialism and imperialism[edit]
Stamp showing British Empire at time of The War of the Worlds publication. Egypt was also under de facto British rule
At the time of the novel's publication the British Empire was in its most aggressive phase of expansion, having conquered and colonised dozens of territories in Africa, Australia, North and South America, the Middle East, South and Southeast Asia, and Atlantic and Pacific islands. It was one of a number of European empires, whose competition to conquer other nations was one factor that eventually led to the First World War.[21]
While Invasion Literature had provided an imaginative foundation for the idea of the heart of the British Empire being conquered by foreign forces, it was not until The War of the Worlds that the reading public of the time was presented with an adversary so completely superior to themselves and the Empire they were part of.[42] A significant motivating force behind the success of the British Empire was its use of sophisticated technology; the Martians, also attempting to establish an empire on Earth, have technology superior to their British adversaries.[43] In writing The War of the Worlds, Wells turned the confident position of a reader in the British Empire on its head, putting an imperial power in the position of being the victim of imperial aggression and thus perhaps encouraging the reader to consider the nature of imperialism itself.[42]
Wells suggests this idea in the following passage from the novel:
And before we judge them [the Martians] too harshly, we must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species has wrought, not only upon animals, such as the vanished Bison and the Dodo, but upon its own inferior races. The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants, in the space of fifty years. Are we such apostles of mercy as to complain if the Martians warred in the same spirit?
—Chapter I, "The Eve of the War"
This also challenged the Victorian notion of there being a natural order, in which the British Empire had a right to rule through their own superiority over subject races.[42]
Social Darwinism[edit]
The novel also dramatises the ideas of race presented in Social Darwinism, an ideology of some prominence at the time it was written. The Martians exercise over humans their 'rights' as a superior race, more advanced in evolution.[44]
Social Darwinism was a theory which applied Darwin's theory of Natural Selection to ethnic groups and social classes. It suggested that the success of these different ethnic groups in world affairs, and social classes in a society were the result of evolutionary forces, a struggle in which the group or class more fit to succeed did so; i.e., the ability of an ethnic group to dominate other ethnic groups, or the chance to succeed or rise to the top of society was determined by biology, not by the effort of individuals, and the offspring of the dominant groups were destined to succeed because they were more evolved. In more modern times it is typically seen as dubious and unscientific for its apparent use of Darwin's ideas to justify the position of the rich and powerful, or dominant ethnic groups.[45]
Wells was born into a family which, while middle class, was not well to do and matured in a society where the merit of an individual was not considered as important as their social class of origin. His father was a professional sportsman, which was seen as inferior, because this was an area that 'gentlemen' indulged in only as an amateur pastime. His mother was at one time a domestic servant, and Wells himself was, prior to his writing career, apprenticed to a draper. His achievements were hard won. Trained as a scientist, well aware of evolutionary theory, he was able to relate his experiences of struggle to Darwin's idea of a world of struggle, but he saw science as a rational system, which extended beyond traditional ideas of race, class and religious notions, and this gave his fiction a critical edge which challenged the use of science to explain political and social norms of the day.[46]
Religion and science[edit]
Good and evil appear to be entirely relative in The War of the Worlds, and the defeat of the Martians does not involve any kind of direct divine action. It has an entirely material cause, the action of microscopic bacteria. An insane clergyman is a key character in the novel, but his attempts to relate the invasion to some kind of biblical enactment of Armageddon seem only to reinforce his mental derangement.[41] His death, as a result of his evangelical outbursts and ravings attracting the attention of the Martians, appears to be an indictment of his outdated religious attitudes making him a candidate for culling by natural selection, at the hands of the superior evolved Martians.[47] However the narrator twice prayed to his god (when he first lay in a bed for days and next when he discovered the defeat of the Martians), and suggests that bacteria may have been divinely allowed to exist on Earth for a reason such as this.
Influences[edit]
A Princess of Mars cover.
Mars and Martians[edit]
Further information: Mars in fiction
The novel originated several enduring Martian tropes in science fiction writing. These include Mars being an ancient world, nearing the end of its life, being the home of a superior civilisation, capable of advanced feats of science and engineering, and also being a source of invasion forces, keen to conquer the Earth. The first two tropes were prominent in Edgar Rice Burroughs "Barsoom" series, beginning with A Princess of Mars in 1912.[15]
Influential scientist Freeman Dyson, a key figure in the search for extraterrestrial life, also acknowledges his debt to reading H.G. Wells' fictions as a child.[48]
The publication and reception of The War of the Worlds also established the vernacular term of 'martian', as a description for something offworldly or unknown.[49]
Aliens and alien invasion[edit]
Further information: Invasion literature
Antecedents[edit]
Wells is credited with establishing several extraterrestrial themes which were later greatly expanded by science fiction writers in the 20th Century, including first contact and war between planets and their differing species. There were, however, stories of aliens and alien invasion prior to publication of The War of the Worlds.[50]
In 1727 Jonathan Swift published Gulliver's Travels. The tale included a race of beings similar but not identical to humanity, who are obsessed with mathematics and are superior to humans. They populate a floating island fortress called Laputa, four and one half miles in diameter, which uses its shadow to prevent sun and rain from reaching earthly nations over which it travels, ensuring they will pay tribute to the Laputians.[51] Voltaire's Micromégas (1752) includes two aliens, from Saturn and Sirius, who are of immense size and visit the Earth out of curiosity. At first they think the planet is uninhabited, due to the difference in scale between them and the peoples of Earth. When they discover the haughty Earth-centric views of Earth philosophers, they are greatly amused by how important Earth beings think they are compared to greater beings in the universe such as themselves.[52]
In 1892 Robert Potter, an Australian clergyman, published The Germ Growers in London. It describes a covert invasion by aliens who take on the appearance of human beings and attempt to develop a virulent disease to assist in their plans for global conquest. It was not widely read, and consequently Wells's vastly more successful novel is generally credited as the seminal alien invasion story.[50]
The first science fiction to be set on Mars may be Across the Zodiac: The Story of a Wrecked Record (1880) by Percy Greg. It was a long-winded book concerned with a civil war on Mars. Another Mars novel, this time dealing with benevolent Martians coming to Earth to give humankind the benefit of their advanced knowledge, was published in 1897 by Kurd Lasswitz — Two Planets (Auf Zwei Planeten). It was not translated until 1971, and thus may not have influenced Wells, although it did depict a Mars influenced by the ideas of Percival Lowell.[53] Other examples are Mr. Stranger's Sealed Packet (1889), which took place on Mars, Gustavus W. Popes's Journey to Mars (1894), and Ellsworth Douglas's Pharaoh's Broker, in which the protagonist encounters an Egyptian civilisation on Mars which, while parallel to that of the Earth has evolved somehow independently.[54]
Early examples of influence on science fiction[edit]
Wells had already proposed another outcome for the alien invasion story in The War of the Worlds. When the Narrator meets the artilleryman the second time, the artilleryman imagines a future where humanity, hiding underground in sewers and tunnels, conducts a guerrilla war, fighting against the Martians for generations to come, and eventually, after learning how to duplicate Martian weapon technology, destroys the invaders and takes back the Earth.[47]
War of the Worlds, 1927 reprint in Amazing Stories.
Six weeks after publication of the novel, the Boston Post newspaper published another alien invasion story, an unauthorised sequel to The War of the Worlds, which turned the tables on the invaders. Edison's Conquest of Mars was written by Garrett P. Serviss, a now little remembered writer, who described the famous inventor Thomas Edison leading a counterattack against the invaders on their home soil.[22] Though this is actually a sequel to 'Fighters from Mars', a revised and unauthorised reprint of War of the Worlds, they both were first printed in the Boston Post in 1898.[55] Lazar Lagin published "Major Well Andyou" in USSR in 1962, an alternative view of events in "War of the Worlds" from the viewpoint of a traitor.
The War of the Worlds was reprinted in the United States in 1927, before the Golden Age of science fiction, by Hugo Gernsback in Amazing Stories. John W. Campbell, another key editor of the era, and periodic short story writer, published several alien invasion stories in the 1930s. Many well known science fiction writers were to follow, including Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, Clifford Simak and in 1953 Robert A. Heinlein with The Puppet Masters and John Wyndham with The Kraken Wakes.[24]
Later examples[edit]
The theme of alien invasion has remained popular to the present day and are frequently used in the plots of all forms of popular entertainment including movies, television, novels, comics and video games. Alan Moore's graphic novel, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Volume II, retells the events in The War of the Worlds. In the end of the first issue of Marvel Zombies 5, it is revealed that the main characters will visit a world called "Martian Protectorate" where the events of War of the Worlds are occurring.
Tripods[edit]
Main article: Tripod (The War of the Worlds)
The Tripods trilogy of books features a central theme of invasion by alien-controlled tripods.
Other narratives, in addition to utilising the alien invasion trope, also involve the appearance of tripod alien fighting machines. The computer game Half-Life 2 makes an apparent homage to The War of the Worlds in the appearance of tripod fighting machines known as Striders, used by the alien invaders.[56] In the video game Unreal Tournament III, one of the vehicles used by the antagonist is a large "Darkwalker" tripod that functions similarly to those in War of the Worlds.
Adaptations[edit]
Main article: Adaptations of The War of the Worlds
The War of the Worlds has spawned several feature films, as well as various radio dramas, comic-book adaptations, video games, a television series, and sequels or parallel stories by other authors.
Among the most famous, or infamous, adaptations is the 1938 radio broadcast that was narrated and directed by Orson Welles. The first two-thirds of the 60-minute broadcast were presented as a news bulletin and led to widespread outrage and panic by certain listeners who had believed the events described in the program were real.[57]
In 1953 came the first War of the Worlds theatrical film produced by George Pal and directed by Byron Haskin, starring Gene Barry. Steven Spielberg directed a 2005 film adaptation starring Tom Cruise, which received generally positive reviews.[58][59]
In the 1980s, a joint American-Canadian venture produced the television series War of the Worlds that ran for two seasons. Its premise was that the Martians had not been killed off, but were instead stored in suspension by the U.S. government. Their accidental awakening results in another war.
In 1978 a best selling Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of The War of the Worlds was produced by Jeff Wayne, with the voices of Richard Burton and David Essex.
See also[edit]
Portal icon Novels portal
Deus ex machina
Le Monde's 100 Books of the Century
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ Facsimile of the original 1st edition
2.Jump up ^ David Y. Hughes and Harry M. Geduld, A Critical Edition of The War of the Worlds: H.G. Wells's Scientific Romance (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1993), p. 1.
3.Jump up ^ John L. Flynn (2005). "War of the Worlds: From Wells to Spielberg". p.5
4.Jump up ^ Patrick Parrinder (2000). "Learning from Other Worlds: Estrangement, Cognition, and the Politics of Science Fiction and Utopia". P.132. Liverpool University Press
5.^ Jump up to: a b http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/people/biographies/goddard.pdf Goddard Biography
6.^ Jump up to: a b "Robert Goddard and His Rockets". NASA.
7.Jump up ^ Wells, The War of the Worlds, Book One, Ch. 4.
8.^ Jump up to: a b c Wells, The War of the Worlds, Book Two, Ch. 1.
9.Jump up ^ Wells, The War of the Worlds, Book Two, Ch. 8.
10.^ Jump up to: a b c d Batchelor, John (1985). H.G. Wells. Cambridge University Press. pp. 23–24. ISBN 0-521-27804-X.
11.^ Jump up to: a b Parrinder, Patrick (1997). H.G. Wells: The Critical Heritage. Routledge. pp. 4–5. ISBN 0-415-15910-5.
12.Jump up ^ Parrinder, Patrick (1981). The Science Fiction of H.G. Wells. Oxford University Press. pp. 15–16. ISBN 0-19-502812-0.
13.Jump up ^ Haynes, Rosylnn D. (1980). H.G. Wells Discover of the Future. Macmillan. p. 239. ISBN 0-333-27186-6.
14.Jump up ^ Batchelor, John (1985). H.G. Wells. Cambridge University Press. p. 50. ISBN 0-521-27804-X.
15.^ Jump up to: a b c d Baxter, Stephen (2005). "H.G. Wells’ Enduring Mythos of Mars". In Glenn Yeffeth. War of the Worlds: fresh perspectives on the H.G. Wells classic/ edited by Glenn Yeffeth (BenBalla): 186–7. ISBN 1-932100-55-5.
16.Jump up ^ Haynes, Rosylnn D. (1980). H.G. Wells Discover of the Future. Macmillan. p. 240. ISBN 0-333-27186-6.
17.Jump up ^ Martin, Christopher (1988). H.G. Wells. Wayland. pp. 42–43. ISBN 1-85210-489-9.
18.^ Jump up to: a b Flynn, John L. (2005). War of the Worlds: From Wells to Spielberg. Galactic Books. pp. 12–19. ISBN 0-9769400-0-0.
19.Jump up ^ Pearson, Lynn F. (2006). Public Art Since 1950. Osprey Publishing. p. 64. ISBN 0-7478-0642-X.
20.Jump up ^ Lackey, Mercedes (2005). "In Woking's Image". In Glenn Yeffeth. War of the Worlds: fresh perspectives on the H.G. Wells classic/ edited by Glenn Yeffeth (BenBalla): 216. ISBN 1-932100-55-5.
21.^ Jump up to: a b Franklin, H. Bruce (2008). War Stars. University of Massachusetts Press. p. 65. ISBN 1-55849-651-3.
22.^ Jump up to: a b c d Gerrold, David (2005). "War of the Worlds". In Glenn Yeffeth. War of the Worlds: fresh perspectives on the H.G. Wells classic/ edited by Glenn Yeffeth (BenBalla): 202–205. ISBN 1-932100-55-5, 9781932100556 Check |isbn= value (help).
23.Jump up ^ Parrinder, Patrick (1997). H.G. Wells: The Critical Heritage. Routledge. p. 8. ISBN 0-415-15910-5.
24.^ Jump up to: a b Urbanski, Heather (2007). Plagues, Apocalypses and Bug-Eyed Monsters. McFarland. p. 156. ISBN 0-7864-2916-X, 9780786429165 Check |isbn= value (help).
25.Jump up ^ David Y. Hughes and Harry M. Geduld, A Critical Edition of The War of the Worlds: H.G. Wells's Scientific Romance (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1993), pgs 281-289.
26.Jump up ^ Aldiss, Brian W.; Wingrove, David (1986). Trillion Year Spree: the History of Science Fiction. London: Victor Gollancz. p. 123. ISBN 0-575-03943-4.
27.^ Jump up to: a b Eby, Cecil D. (1988). The Road to Armageddon: The Martial Spirit in English Popular Literature, 1870–1914. Duke University Press. pp. 11–13. ISBN 0-8223-0775-8.
28.^ Jump up to: a b c Batchelor, John (1985). H.G. Wells. CUP Archive. p. 7. ISBN 0-521-27804-X.
29.Jump up ^ Parrinder, Patrick (2000). Learning from Other Worlds. Liverpool University Press. p. 142. ISBN 0-85323-584-8.
30.Jump up ^ McConnell, Frank (1981). The Science Fiction of H.G. Wells. Oxford University Press. p. 134. ISBN 0-19-502812-0.
31.Jump up ^ Guthke, Karl S. (1990). The Last Frontier: Imagining Other Worlds from the Copernican Revolution to Modern Fiction. Translated by Helen Atkins. Cornell University Press. pp. 368–9. ISBN 0-8014-1680-9.
32.Jump up ^ Seed, David (2005). A Companion to Science Fiction. Blackwell Publishing. p. 546. ISBN 1-4051-1218-2.
33.Jump up ^ Meadows, Arthur Jack (2007). The Future of the Universe. Springer. p. 5. ISBN 1-85233-946-2.
34.^ Jump up to: a b Gannon, Charles E. (2005). Rumours of War and Infernal Machines. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 99–100. ISBN 0-7425-4035-9.
35.Jump up ^ Parrinder, Patrick (1997). H.G. Wells: The Critical Heritage. Routledge. pp. 11–12. ISBN 0-415-15910-5.
36.Jump up ^ Howard D. Black, "Real and Imagined Wars and Armies" in Jane Field (ed.) "The accurate and inaccurate predictions of Early Science Fiction"
37.Jump up ^ Landships: Armored Vehicles for Colonial-era Gaming
38.Jump up ^ "Japanese knotweed - Weed information - Organic Weed Management". Gardenorganic.org.uk. 2006-08-22. Retrieved 2012-06-11.
39.^ Jump up to: a b Williamson, Jack (2005). "The Evolution of the Martians". In Glenn Yeffeth. War of the Worlds: fresh perspectives on the H.G. Wells classic/ edited by Glenn Yeffeth (BenBella): 189–195. ISBN 1-932100-55-5, 9781932100556 Check |isbn= value (help).
40.Jump up ^ Haynes, Rosylnn D. (1980). H.G. Wells Discover of the Future. Macmillan. pp. 129–131. ISBN 0-333-27186-6.
41.^ Jump up to: a b Draper, Michael (1987). H.G. Wells. Macmillan. pp. 51–52. ISBN 0-333-40747-4.
42.^ Jump up to: a b c Zebrowski, George (2005). "The Fear of the Worlds". In Glenn Yeffeth. War of the Worlds: fresh perspectives on the H.G. Wells classic/ edited by Glenn Yeffeth (BenBalla): 235–41. ISBN 1-932100-55-5.
43.Jump up ^ Roberts, Adam (2006). The History of Science Fiction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 148. ISBN 0-333-97022-5.
44.Jump up ^ Parrinder, Patrick (2000). Learning from Other Worlds. Liverpool University Press. p. 137. ISBN 0-85323-584-8.
45.Jump up ^ McClellan, James Edward; Dorn, Harold (2006). Science and Technology in World History. JHU Press. pp. 378–90. ISBN 0-8018-8360-1.
46.Jump up ^ Roberts, Adam (2006). The History of Science Fiction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 143–44. ISBN 0-333-97022-5.
47.^ Jump up to: a b Batchelor, John (1985). H.G. Wells. Cambridge University Press. p. 28. ISBN 0-521-27804-X.
48.Jump up ^ Basalla, George (2006). Civilized Life in the Universe: Scientists on Intelligent Extraterrestrials. Oxford University Press US. p. 91. ISBN 0-19-517181-0, 9780195171815 Check |isbn= value (help).
49.Jump up ^ Silverberg, Robert (2005). "Introduction". In Glenn Yeffeth. War of the Worlds: fresh perspectives on the H.G. Wells classic/ edited by Glenn Yeffeth (BenBalla): 12. ISBN 1-932100-55-5.
50.^ Jump up to: a b Flynn, John L. (2005). War of the Worlds: From Wells to Spielberg. Galactic Books. pp. 18–19. ISBN 0-9769400-0-0.
51.Jump up ^ Guthke, Karl S. (1990). The Last Frontier: Imagining Other Worlds from the Copernican Revolution to Modern Fiction. Translated by Helen Atkins. Cornell University Press. pp. 300–301. ISBN 0-8014-1680-9.
52.Jump up ^ Guthke, Karl S. (1990). The Last Frontier: Imagining Other Worlds from the Copernican Revolution to Modern Fiction. Translated by Helen Atkins. Cornell University Press. pp. 301–304. ISBN 0-8014-1680-9.
53.Jump up ^ Hotakainen, Markus (2008). Mars: A Myth Turned to Landscape. Springer. p. 205. ISBN 0-387-76507-7.
54.Jump up ^ Westfahl, Gary (2000). Space and Beyond. Greenwood Publishing Groups. p. 38. ISBN 0-313-30846-2.
55.Jump up ^ Edison’s Conquest of Mars, "Forward" by Robert Godwin, Apogee Books 2005
56.Jump up ^ "Half Life 2". Gamecritics.com. Retrieved 2009-02-17.
57.Jump up ^ Brinkley, Alan (2010). "Chapter 23 - The Great Depression". The Unfinished Nation. p. 615. ISBN 978-0-07-338552-5.
58.Jump up ^ "War of the Worlds". Metacritic. Retrieved 28 September 2009.
59.Jump up ^ "War of the Worlds". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 3 February 2012.
Bibliography[edit]
Coren, Michael (1993) The Invisible Man : The Life and Liberties of H.G. Wells. Publisher: Random House of Canada. ISBN 0-394-22252-0
Gosling, John. Waging the War of the Worlds. Jefferson, North Carolina, McFarland, 2009 (paperback, ISBN 0-7864-4105-4).
Hughes, David Y. and Harry M. Geduld, A Critical Edition of The War of the Worlds: H.G. Wells's Scientific Romance. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1993. ISBN 0-253-32853-5
Roth, Christopher F. (2005) "Ufology as Anthropology: Race, Extraterrestrials, and the Occult." In E.T. Culture: Anthropology in Outerspaces, ed. by Debbora Battaglia. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
Yeffeth, Glenn (Editor) (2005) The War of the Worlds: Fresh Perspectives on the H. G. Wells Classic. Publisher: Benbella Books ISBN 1-932100-55-5
External links[edit]
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
The War of the Worlds
The War of the Worlds Invasion Large resource containing comment and review on the history of The War of the Worlds.
The War of the Worlds at Project Gutenberg.
Speaker Icon.svg The War of the Worlds public domain audiobook from LibriVox
TIME Archives A look at perceptions of The War of the Worlds over time.
Hundreds of cover images of the book's different editions, from 1898 to now.
The War of the Worlds in English and Russian (parallel translation)
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Works by H. G. Wells
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
H. G. Wells's The War of the Worlds
Categories: 1898 novels
1890s science fiction novels
The War of the Worlds
War of the Worlds written fiction
Novels by H. G. Wells
Invasion literature
Novels first published in serial form
Works originally published in Pearson's Magazine
Novels set in Surrey
Heinemann (publisher) books
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikimedia Shop
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
Print/export
Languages
Afrikaans
العربية
Български
Català
Čeština
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
Ελληνικά
Español
فارسی
Français
Gaeilge
Galego
한국어
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
עברית
Lojban
Magyar
മലയാളം
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Occitan
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Shqip
Simple English
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 20 March 2014 at 11:21.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
The War of the Worlds (1953 film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other films based on the novel, see List of works based on The War of the Worlds#Films.
The War of the Worlds
Film poster The War of the Worlds 1953.jpg
Film poster
Directed by
Byron Haskin
Produced by
George Pal
Screenplay by
Barré Lyndon
Based on
The War of the Worlds
by H. G. Wells
Narrated by
Sir Cedric Hardwicke
Starring
Gene Barry
Ann Robinson
Music by
Leith Stevens
Cinematography
George Barnes
Editing by
Everett Douglas
Distributed by
Paramount Pictures
Release dates
August 26, 1953
Running time
85 minutes
Country
United States
Language
English
Budget
$2 million
Box office
$2,000,000 (US rentals)[1]
The War of the Worlds (also known promotionally as H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds) is a 1953 Paramount Pictures Technicolor science fiction film starring Gene Barry and Ann Robinson. It is a loose adaptation of the H. G. Wells classic novel of the same name, and the first of a number of film adaptations based on Wells' novel. Produced by George Pal and directed by Byron Haskin from a script by Barré Lyndon, it was the first of two adaptations of Wells' work to be filmed by Pal, and is considered to be one of the great science fiction films of the 1950s.[2] It won an Oscar for its special effects and was later selected for inclusion in the National Film Registry of the Library of Congress.
Contents [hide]
1 Plot 1.1 Differences from the Wells novel
2 Cast
3 Production 3.1 Special effects
4 Response
5 Cultural relevance
6 References
7 Additional resources
8 External links
Plot[edit]
Following the credits, the film begins with a series of color matte paintings by astronomical artist Chesley Bonestell depicting the planets of our Solar System (all except Venus). A narrator (Sir Cedric Hardwicke) offers a tour of the hostile environment of each world, eventually explaining why the Martians find our lush, green and blue Earth the only world worthy of their scrutiny and coming invasion.
Wells' novel is updated to early 1950s southern California. Dr. Clayton Forrester (Gene Barry), a scientist with the Manhattan Project, is fishing with colleagues when a large object crash lands near the town of Linda Rosa. At the impact site, he meets Sylvia Van Buren (Ann Robinson) and her uncle, Pastor Matthew Collins (Lewis Martin). Van Buren says the meteorite come down at a low angle, while Forrester observes it appears far lighter than normal for its very large size; his Geiger counter also detects it is slightly radioactive, but the object is still too hot to examine closely. Unable to account for these anomalies, Forrester is intrigued and decides to wait in town overnight for the object to cool down.
Later that evening, a round hatch on top of the object slowly unscrews and falls away; a pulsating, mechanical, cobra-shaped head piece emerges, supported by the long goose-neck of a Martian war machine. The three men who remained behind at the crash site as night guards approach, waving a white flag, and the cobra-head fires a heat-ray, vaporizing them; it also damages a nearby electrical tower, knocking out the power to Linda Rosa. Dr. Forrester notices that his and other people's watches have stopped running, having become magnetized; he then observes the sheriff's compass now points towards the meteorite crash site, away from magnetic north. Forrester and the sheriff go to investigate and are attacked by the Martian heat-ray; both manage to survive and then raise the alarm.
Amid reports that other large meteorite-ships are landing throughout the world, the Marines surround the original landing site. Three large, copper-colored, Manta Ray-shaped war machines rise from their gully and begin to slowly advance. Pastor Collins approaches them, reciting Psalm 23, his Bible held up as a sign of peace and goodwill; the Martians disintegrate him instantly. The large Marine force immediately opens fire with everything in their heavy arsenal, but each war machine is protected by an impenetrable force field that resembles, when briefly visible, the glass jar placed over mantle clocks: cylindrical and with a hemispherical top. The Martians then use both their heat and pulsing "skeleton beam" rays to send the military force into full retreat. Military leaders of the Sixth United States Army later gather in Los Angeles to brief reporters and formulate a counterattack defense plan, as well as prepare for an evacuation of major cities in the path of the Martians.
Forrester and Van Buren escape the carnage in a small military spotter plane, but later crash land, barely avoiding colliding with other Martian war machines now on the move. They eventually hide in an abandoned farmhouse, but are trapped inside when another meteorite-ship comes crashing down, half-burying the farmhouse. Later, a Martian electronic eye attached to a long, flexible cable inspects the ruined farmhouse's interior but fails to notice them, finally leaving the ruins. When a lone Martian explorer later confronts Van Buren, Forrester quickly wounds it with an axe. Forrester saves a sample of Martian blood on Van Buren's scarf after quickly using the axe to sever the thick, long cable of the returned electronic eye; he then grabs up the undamaged camera housing, and they quickly exit. The hovering war machine soon blasts the farmhouse, but Van Buren and Forrester have safely made their escape. They eventually rejoin Forrester's co-workers at Pacific Tech in Los Angeles. From the blood sample and the electronic eye's optics, the scientists make deductions about Martian eyesight and physiology, in particular that the creatures are physically weak and have anemic blood.
U. S. Air Force YB-49 taking off to atom bomb the invading Martians.
In a desperate bid to stop the invaders, a United States Air Force Northrop YB-49 Flying Wing bomber drops an atomic bomb on the three original war machines, but to no effect, due to their protective force fields; the Martians continue to advance and the government orders an immediate evacuation. The Pacific Tech group must now come up with something, because they estimate the Earth can be conquered in just six days. As they evacuate, widespread panic among the populace scatters the Pacific Tech group; a mob steals their trucks and wrecks their equipment, and in the chaos Forrester and Van Buren are separated.
All seems lost; humanity is helpless against the Martians. Forrester searches for Van Buren in the burning ruins of Los Angeles, now under attack. He remembers something she told him, and he eventually finds her in a church with other refugees, waiting for the end. An approaching war machine suddenly crashes into a building, then another one falls nearby. Forrester soon discovers that the invaders are dying. As in H. G. Wells' novel, the Martians have no biological defenses against the Earth's viruses and bacteria. The smallest creatures that "God in His wisdom had put upon this Earth" have saved mankind from extinction.
Differences from the Wells novel[edit]
As noted by Caroline Blake,[3] the film is very different from the original novel in its attitude toward religion, as reflected especially in the depiction of clergymen as characters. "The staunchly secularist Wells depicted a cowardly and thoroughly uninspiring Curate, whom the narrator regards with disgust, with which the reader is invited to concur. In the film there is instead the sympathetic and heroic Pastor Collins who dies a martyr's death. And then the film's final scene in the church, strongly emphasizing the Divine nature of Humanity's deliverance, has no parallel in the original book."
George Pal's adaptation has many other notable differences from H. G. Wells' novel. The closest resemblance is probably that of the antagonists. The film's aliens are indeed Martians, and invade Earth for the same reasons as those from the novel (the state of Mars suggests that it is in the final stages of being able to support life, leading to the Martians decision to make Earth their new home). They land in the same way, by crashing to the Earth. However, the book's spacecraft are large cylinder-shaped projectiles fired from the Martian surface from some kind of cannon, instead of the film's meteorite-spaceships; but the Martians emerge from their craft in the same way, by unscrewing a large, round hatch. They appear to have no use for humans in the film. In the novel they are observed directly feeding on humans by draining their victims' blood using pipettes; there is also a speculation about the Martians eventually using human slaves to hunt down all remaining human survivors after they have conquered Earth. In the film the Martians do not bring the novel's fast-growing red weed with them, but they are defeated by Earth microorganisms, as observed in the novel. However, they die from the effects of the microorganisms within three days of the landing of the first meteorite-ship; in the novel the Martians die within about three weeks of their invasion of England.[4]
The Martians themselves bear no physical resemblance to the novel's Martians. The novel's are bear-sized, bulkish creatures whose bodies are described as "merely heads", with a beak-like mouth, sixteen tentacles in two groupings of eight, and two "luminous, disk-like eyes". Due to budget constraints, their film counterparts are short, reddish-brown creatures with two long, thin arms with three long, thin fingers with suction cup tips. The Martian's "head," if it can be called that, is a broad "face" at the top-front of its broad shouldered upper torso, the only apparent feature of which is a single large eye with three distinctly colored lenses (red, blue, and green). The Martians' lower extremities, whatever they may be, are never shown. (Some speculative designs for the creature suggest the idea of three thin legs resembling their fingers, while others show them as bipeds with short, stubby legs with three-toed feet.) [4]
The film's Martian war machines do actually have more of a resemblance than they may seem at first glance. The book's machines are 10-story tall Tripods and carry the heat-ray projector on an articulated arm connected to the front of the war machine's main body. The film's machines are shaped like manta rays, with a bulbous, elongated green window at the front, through which the Martians observe their surroundings. On top of the machine is the cobra head-like heat-ray attached to a long, narrow, goose-neck extension. They can be mistaken for flying-machines, but Dr. Forrester states that they are lifted by "invisible legs"; in one scene, when the first machine emerges, you can see faint traces of three energy legs beneath and three sparking traces where the three energy shafts touch the burning ground. Therefore, technically speaking, the film's war machines are indeed tripods, though they are never given that designation. Whereas the novel's war machines had no protection against British army and navy cannon fire, the film's war machines have a force field surrounding them; this invisible shield is described by Dr. Forrester as a "protective blister".[4]
The Martian weaponry is also partially unchanged. The heat-ray has the very same effect as that of the novel. However, the novel's heat-ray mechanism is briefly described as just a rounded hump when first seen in silhouette rising above the landing crater's rim; it fires an invisible energy beam in a wide arc while still in the pit made by the first Martian cylinder after it crash-lands. The film's heat-ray projector when first seen is shaped like a cobra's head and has a single, red pulsing "eye," which likely acts like a targeting telescope for the Martians inside their Manta Ray-like war machine. The book describes another weapon, the "black smoke" used to kill all life; the war machines fire canisters containing a black smoke-powder through a bazooka-like tube accessory. When dispersed, this black powder is lethal to all life forms who breathe it in. This weapon is replaced in the film by a Martian "skeleton beam," green pulsing bursts fired from the wingtips of the Manta-Ray machines; these bursts break apart the sub-atomic bonds that hold matter together on anything they touch. These skeleton beams are used off screen to obliterate several French cities.[4]
The plot of the film is very different from the novel: The novel tells the story of a 19th-century journalist (with additional narration made by his brother in later chapters), who journeys through Victorian London and its environs while the Martians attack, eventually being reunited with his wife; the film's protagonist is a California scientist who falls in love with a former college student after the Martian attack begins. However, certain points of the film's plot are similar to the novel, from the crash-landing of the Martian meteorite-ships to their eventual defeat by Earth's microorganisms. Doctor Forrester also experiences similar events like the book's narrator: an ordeal in a destroyed house, observing an actual Martian up close, and eventually reuniting with his love interest at the end of the story. The film is given more of a Cold War theme with its use of the Atomic Bomb against the enemy and the mass-destruction that such a global war would inflict on mankind.[4]
Cast[edit]
Gene Barry as Dr. Clayton Forrester
Ann Robinson as Sylvia van Buren
Les Tremayne as General Mann
Bob Cornthwaite as Dr. Pryor
Sandro Giglio as Dr. Bilderbeck
Lewis Martin as Pastor Dr. Matthew Collins
Housely Stevenson Jr. as General Mann's aide
Paul Frees as Radio reporter
Bill Phipps as Wash Perry
Vernon Rich as Colonel Ralph Heffner
Henry Brandon as Cop at crash site
Jack Kruschen as Salvatore
Sir Cedric Hardwicke as Voice of commentary/Narrator
Charles Gemora as the Martian
Gertrude W. Hoffmann as Elderly Woman News Vendor (uncredited)
Production[edit]
The film opens with a prologue in black and white and switches to Technicolor during the opening title sequence. George Pal originally planned for the final third of the film to be shot in the new 3-D process to visually enhance the Martians' attack on Los Angeles. The plan was dropped prior to actual production of the film, presumably being deemed too expensive. World War II stock footage was used to produce a montage of destruction to show the worldwide invasion, with armies of all nations joining together to fight the invaders.[5]
The California city of Corona was used as the shooting location of the fictitious town of Linda Rosa. St. Brendan's Catholic Church, located at 310 South Van Ness Avenue in Los Angeles, was the setting used in the climatic scene where a large group of desperate people gather to pray. The rolling hills and main thoroughfares of El Sereno were also used in the film.[5]
On the commentary track of the Special Collector's DVD Edition of War of the Worlds, Ann Robinson and Gene Barry point out that the cartoon character Woody Woodpecker is seen in a tree top, center screen, when the first large Martian meteorite-ship crashes through the sky near the beginning of the film. Woody's creator Walter Lantz and George Pal were close friends. Pal tried to always include the Woody character out of friendship and good luck in his productions; in Pal's 1st science fiction feature Destination Moon, a Woody Woodpecker short is an integral part in the film.
The composer of the film score, Leith Stevens, also composed two other scores for George Pal productions: Destination Moon and When Worlds Collide.[5]
Special effects[edit]
An effort was made to avoid the stereotypical flying saucer look of UFOs: The Martian war machines (designed by Al Nozaki) were instead made to be sinister-looking machines shaped like manta rays floating above the ground. Three Martian war machine props were made out of copper for the film. The same blueprints were used a decade later to construct the alien spacecraft in the film Robinson Crusoe on Mars, also directed by Byron Haskin; that film prop was later reported melted down as part of a scrap copper recycling drive.[4] (The model the late Forrest Ackerman had in his massive, now dispersed Los Angeles science fiction collection was a replica made using the Robinson Crusoe on Mars blueprints; it was constructed by friends Paul and Larry Brooks.)
Each Martian machine was topped with an articulated metal neck/arm, culminating in the cobra-like head, housing a single electronic eye that operated both like a periscope and as a weapon. The electronic eye also housed the Martian heat ray, which pulsed and fired red sparking beams, all accompanied by thrumming and a high-pitched clattering shriek when the ray was used. The distinctive sound effect of the weapon was created by an orchestra performing a written score, mainly through the use of violins and cellos. For many years, it was utilized as a standard ray-gun sound on children's television shows and the science-fiction anthology series The Outer Limits, particularly in the episode "The Children of Spider County".[5]
The machines also fired a green ray (referred to as a skeleton beam) from their wingtips, generating a distinctive sound, also disintegrating their targets, notably people; this second weapon is a replacement for the chemical weapon black smoke described in Wells' novel. This weapon's sound effect (created by striking a high tension cable with a hammer) was reused in Star Trek: The Original Series, accompanying the launch of photon torpedos. Another prominent sound effect was a chattering, synthesized echo, perhaps representing some kind of Martian sonar; it can be described as sounding like hissing electronic rattlesnakes.[5]
The disintegration effect took 144 separate matte paintings to create. The sound effects of the war machines' heat rays firing were created by mixing the sound of three electric guitars being recorded backwards. The Martian's scream in the farmhouse ruins was created by mixing the sound of a microphone scraping along dry ice being combined with a woman's recorded scream and then reverse-played for the sound effect mix.[5]
There were many problems trying to create the walking tripods of Wells' novel. It was eventually decided to make the Martian machines appear to float in the air on three invisible legs. To show their existence, subtle special effects downward lights were to be added directly under the moving war machines; however, in the final film, these only appear when one of the first machines can be seen rising from the Martian's landing site. It proved too difficult to mark out the invisible legs when smoke and other effects had to be seen beneath the machines, and the effect used to create them also created a major fire hazard. In all of the subsequent scenes, however, the three invisible leg beams create small, sparking fires where they touch the ground.[5]
Response[edit]
The War of the Worlds had its official premiere in Hollywood on February 20, 1953, although it did not go into general theatrical release until the autumn of that year.[4] The film was both a critical and box office success. It accrued $2,000,000 in distributors' domestic (U.S. and Canada) rentals, making it the year's biggest science fiction film hit.[6]
The New York Times review noted, "[The film is] an imaginatively conceived, professionally turned adventure, which makes excellent use of Technicolor, special effects by a crew of experts, and impressively drawn backgrounds...Director Byron Haskin, working from a tight script by Barré Lyndon, has made this excursion suspenseful, fast and, on occasion, properly chilling."[7] "Brog" in Variety felt, "[It is] a socko science-fiction feature, as fearsome as a film as was the Orson Welles 1938 radio interpretation...what starring honors there are go strictly to the special effects, which create an atmosphere of soul-chilling apprehension so effectively [that] audiences will actually take alarm at the danger posed in the picture. It can't be recommended for the weak-hearted, but to the many who delight in an occasional good scare, it's socko entertainment of hackle-raising quality."[8]
The film was nominated for three Academy Awards, winning in the category Special Effects.[9]
Film Editing
Special Effects
Sound Recording (Loren L. Ryder)
In 2011 The War of the Worlds was deemed culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant by the United States Library of Congress and was selected for preservation in the National Film Registry.[10] The Registry noted the film's release during the early years of the Cold War and how it used "the apocalyptic paranoia of the atomic age".[11] The Registry also cited the film's special effects, which at its release were called "soul-chilling, hackle-raising, and not for the faint of heart".[11]
American Film Institute listsAFI's 100 Years...100 Movies – Nominated[12]
AFI's 100 Years...100 Thrills – Nominated[13]
AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains: Martians – #27 Villains
AFI's 10 Top 10 – Nominated Science Fiction Film[14]
Cultural relevance[edit]
This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. (November 2013)
The 1988 War of the Worlds TV series is a sequel to the Pal film; Ann Robinson reprises her role as Sylvia Van Buren in three episodes. Robinson also reprises her role in two other films, first as Dr. Van Buren in 1988's Midnight Movie Massacre and then as Dr. Sylvia Van Buren in 2005's The Naked Monster.
Mystery Science Theater 3000 named one of its lead characters, the mad scientist Dr. Clayton Forrester, as a homage to the 1953 film.
The name "Pacific Tech" ("Pacific Institute of Technology") has since been referenced in other films and television episodes whenever directors/writers/producers needed to depict a science-oriented California university without using a specific institution's name.[5]
In Independence Day, invading aliens are defeated in part by infecting the mothership with a computer virus. There are also several other references to Pal's 1953 War of the Worlds: the failed attempt of a dropped atomic bomb is replaced with a nuclear armed cruise missile launched by a B-2 Spirit bomber (a direct descendant of the Northrop YB-49 bomber used in the original) and Captain Hiller being based in El Toro, CA, which Dr. Forrester mentions as being the home of the Marines, which make the first assault on the invading Martians in the 1953 film.
The Asylum's 2005 direct-to-DVD adaptation has direct references to the Pal version: Inside the Martian's mouth, they have three tongues that closely resemble the three Martian fingers seen in the Pal film. The Asylum film also includes scenes of power outages after the aliens' arrival via meteorite-ships. As in the Pal film, refugees are seen hiding in the mountains instead of hiding underground, as in the Wells novel.
Steven Spielberg's 2005 adaptation, though an adaptation of the original Wells novel, does feature several references to the original film: Gene Barry and Ann Robinson have cameo appearances near the end, and the invading aliens have three-fingered hands but are depicted as reptile-like, three-legged walking tripods. There is also a long, snake-like alien camera probe deployed by the invaders in much the same manner as in the 1953 film.
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ 'The Top Box Office Hits of 1953', Variety, January 13, 1954
2.Jump up ^ M. Keith Booker, Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction Cinema, page 126 (Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2010). ISBN 978-0-8108-5570-0
3.Jump up ^ Caroline G. Blake, "Religion in Speculative Fiction", Ch.2, 5
4.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Rubin, Steve. Cinefantastique magazine, Vol 5 No. 4 (1977), "The War of the Worlds", pgs. 4 - 16; 34 - 47
5.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h Warren, Bill. Keep Watching The Skies Vol I: 1950 - 1957, pgs. 151 - 163, McFarland, 1982. ISBN 0-89950-032-3.
6.Jump up ^ Gebert, Michael. The Encyclopedia of Movie Awards (listing of 'Box Office (Domestic Rentals)' for 1953, taken from Variety magazine), St. Martin's Paperbacks, 1996. ISBN 0-668-05308-9. "Rentals" refers to the distributor/studio's share of the box office gross, which, according to Gebert, is normally roughly half of the money generated by ticket sales.
7.Jump up ^ "The Screen in Review: New Martian Invasion Is Seen in War of the Worlds, Which Bows at Mayfair". New York Times, August 14, 1953. Retrieved 2007-12-29.
8.Jump up ^ "Brog". Review from Variety dated April 6, 1953, taken from Variety's Complete Science Fiction Reviews, edited by Don Willis, Garland Publishing, Inc., 1985. ISBN 0-8240-6263-9
9.Jump up ^ "The 26th Academy Awards (1954) Nominees and Winners". oscars.org. Retrieved 2011-08-20.
10.Jump up ^ "Silence of the Lambs, Bambi, and Forrest Gump added to National Film Registry". New York Times: Artsbeat. 2011-12-27. Retrieved 2011-12-28.
11.^ Jump up to: a b "2011 National Film Registry More Than a Box of Chocolates". Library of Congress. December 28, 2011. Retrieved December 28, 2011.
12.Jump up ^ AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies Nominees
13.Jump up ^ AFI's 100 Years...100 Thrills Nominees
14.Jump up ^ AFI's 10 Top 10 Ballot
Additional resources[edit]
Hickman, Gail Morgan. The Films of George Pal, 1977. A. S. Barnes and Company: New York. ISBN 0-498-01960-8
Parish, James Robert and Pitts, Michael R. Pitts. The Great Science Fiction Pictures. 1977. McFarland & Company. ISBN 0-8108-1029-8.
Strick, Philip. Science Fiction Movies. Octopus Books Limited. 1976. ISBN 0-7064-0470-X.
External links[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to The War of the Worlds (1953 film).
The Complete War of the Worlds Website
Making of the movie at site dedicated to all things War Of The Worlds
Interview with War of the Worlds star Ann Robinson
The War of the Worlds at the Internet Movie Database
The War of the Worlds at the TCM Movie Database
The War of the Worlds at Rotten Tomatoes
The War of the Worlds at allmovie
The War of the Worlds on Lux Radio Theater: February 8, 1955. Adaptation of 1953 movie.
The War of the Worlds (1953) in 30 seconds, re-enacted by bunnies. at Angry Alien Productions
The War of the Worlds - A Radio and Film Score Remembrance
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
H. G. Wells's The War of the Worlds
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Works by H. G. Wells
[show]
v ·
t ·
e
Films directed by Byron Haskin
Categories: 1953 films
English-language films
American disaster films
1950s science fiction films
Films set in Los Angeles, California
Films set in the 1950s
Films directed by Byron Haskin
Films that won the Best Visual Effects Academy Award
Films shot in Arizona
Films shot in California
Paramount Pictures films
Films based on The War of the Worlds
United States Marine Corps in popular culture
United States National Film Registry films
Science fiction horror films
Alien invasions in films
Navigation menu
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikimedia Shop
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
Print/export
Languages
Català
Čeština
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
日本語
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Suomi
Svenska
Українська
Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 March 2014 at 20:22.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)