Return to Ducky's collection
Introduction
As everyone might be aware, subjects of the arts are always up to interpretation. Photography, paintings, drawings, music, etc. are all open for debate. In a nut shell, most things in the art word are much like a Rorschach picture.
As I have found in my +/-20 years of literary experience, literature is not anything different. I have first hand experience with this as well, where I have had a short story analyzed to the point where I didn't recognize the story any longer.
Here is the example in question: The Eulogy. This is one of my favorite short stories I've ever written. But the reason I wrote the story is pretty simple. I was dating a girl named Heather at the time and I wrote many stories in honor of her. This one was when our relationship was beginning to fall apart. The eulogy (and the death of the man's wife) was a metaphor for me starting to fall out of love with Heather.
However, when I presented this story to my ENG307 class three years after the fact, my professor (of course, not knowing why I had written it) had a very different interpretation of the piece. He made a mention of how the contrast between the color of the table and the color of the legal pad was significant of the conflict the man was going through.
What was one to say? I sat there and said, "uh…sure."
Of course, the analysis of the piece was not wholly unfounded. What he said made complete sense from an academic standpoint. But from the writer's standpoint, it was amazing that something so inconsequential to myself when I wrote it could have such an impact on a reader.
This got me thinking. I had a friend back at USM who was also an English major and he would always get straight A's in his English classes because he knew how to bullshit and "work the system". This is a very fine quality to have when you are working in any art field. Obviously, you should know what you're doing and, in the very least, know how to sound intelligent. I have tested the waters on the "bullshit technique" in the same English class where my short story was analyzed. I very rarely ever read any of the texts for the class, but I would listen to what other students said, get the gist of what the text was about and supply some mind-boggling impressive statement that would amaze every one in the room.
Of course, only Ian knew I was bullshitting (and he only knew after the fact when I told him). I don't think my professor ever caught on, but I'm pretty sure he would be impressed with my skills if I told him.
Back to why I created this page: I realized that, one: bullshitting is fun; two, it's easy; and three, you could apply it to just about anything.
So I hope you enjoy. This page is going to be on the debate/argumentative side because, let's face it, to be a good bullshitter, you need to be able to write persuasively.
I don't expect anyone to agree with me; but what I do strongly suggest is that people at least read these pieces with an open mind. I realize that me telling you upfront that everything written here will be bullshit won't help my case much; but just go along with it.
For science!
Why Charlie the Unicorn is a Good Example of the Conflict Between Religion and Atheism
(18 August 2010)
I assume everyone has seen the Charlie the Unicorn video via Youtube, Newgrounds or another source, yes? If not, you can view it here.
I am going to make the argument that the events and characters in this video symbolize the relationship and struggle between religion and agnostics/atheists.
First of all, let's start with Charlie. He is what we may refer to as the nonbeliever in this testimony. It is uncertain whether he would be labeled an atheist or an agnostic, so the term "nonbeliever" covers that ground.
When the video starts, Charlie is sleeping peacefully in the meadow when he is approached by two shrill-voiced fellow unicorns. These two unicorns have no names, but we shall label them the believers. They are the ones who believe in Candy Mountain (which I will go into in a moment) and want to share this discovery with Charlie. The nonbeliever, however, does not want to get up. He tells them, in his skeptic words, "yeah, Candy Mountain. Right. I'm just going to go back to sleep now." In this particular scene, Charlie represents the nonbelievers who don't want to wake up early on Sunday mornings to go to church. The prodding of the two believers represents those who hassle you to get up early to attend a service.
Candy Mountain, in this video, is a reference to heaven or paradise. The believers have faith that Candy Mountain (aka "paradise") is real and Charlie does not. Charlie even makes a specific point in saying "you guys know there is no Candy Mountain, right?".
The leopluradon is the god or even prophet of the believers. When the three unicorns approach the leopluradon, it bellows something and the believers, having heard it speak, believe it is leading them to paradise. The nonbeliever is the one who tries to rationalize with the believers in telling them that their "prophet" never actually said anything. But the believers refuse to listen.
The next scene leads the three to a shaky bridge where the believers have faith that they will get across without any harm befalling them. Charlie, on the other hand, is rational in his thoughts in thinking that the bridge is dangerous and they should get off it. Once again, the believers refuse to heed his warnings.
When the trio finally get to paradise, the nonbeliever is surprised. It actually exists. One could argue that this was the point when the nonbeliever started to realize that his skepticism was in vain and perhaps there was a paradise after all. The singing letters of "C.A.N.D.Y." symbolize choirs in church singing for paradise.
During the song about paradise, all the letters of "CANDY" start to float along with the two believers. This symbolizes the religious euphoria that overtakes people. They, of course, are not literally floating in the air, but make note that the nonbeliever does not float with them. This means that, although he was presented with "proof" of paradise, he still remains skeptical.
When the song is over, the nonbeliever decides to enter the mountain. In there, he is wished farewell and then locked inside. This is a very important moment because, not only does it parallel what happened to Jesus when he died, but it also is a turning point in the video. The nonbeliever is shown the true side to the believers and it turns out to only be a con.
Of course, the climactic ending of the video, when Charlie wakes up and realizes his kidney is missing, symbolizes how the church steals people's money by making them promises of paradise and "candy".
….
That is the end of my argument. I hoped you enjoyed. Of course, there was one reference I left out, but it is pretty self explanatory: the two believers repeat several times "shun the nonbeliever". I believe this comment speaks for itself and deserves no further analyzing.
