The Art of Denial

The Power and the Glory (Final Entry)

Page 202-221

October 26, 2007

10:01 A.M.

...

......Towards the end of the novel, the author once again recurrs to parallelism in order to tell the story. The connection I made to the priest was the usual state of denial and the need to separate oneself from reality; however, I must admit the ending left me very confused.

.

.......After the priest was supposedly shot, the reader gets a look back at the Fellows household. Although it is never directly stated, the reader is lead to believe something happened to Coral Fellows and her parents are on their way back home. It is obvious Trixy Fellows wants to act as if Coral didn't exist, as if she didn't relate to them at all. "But we agreed, dear, didn't we, that it was better to say nothing at all, ever. We mustn't be morbid...We've got our own life to lead (211)." She wants to be separated from Coral's memory, she wants nothing to do with it. She hides her sorrow in her perkiness, in the enthusiasm the future holds. The future is a new beginning that will help her part from Coral and from her memory. Starting fresh at her sister's house will help Trixy forget about Coral that way she won't need to be in denial anymore, Coral's memory will just vanish on its own.

.

......Just as well, the reader sees Mr. Tench's denial. He has finally heard back from his wife in England, but to his dissappointment she wants "to make things legal. Divorce...(215)." It is quite obvious that Mr. Tench is completely destroyed. "He belched and put his other hand against his stomach, pressing, pressing, seeking an obscure pain which was nearly always there (215)." This pain is a cause of the heartbreak, the solitude, and the disappointment brought along by his wife's request. It is obvious that he still loves her, and she has clearly moved on. However, he wants to deny that his wife still has such effect on him and that he is so vulnerable, so he dismisses his pain as "just indigestion (215)." He denies that his wife's request has any effect on him by claiming it's indigestion.

.

......The whiskey priest, which we later find out is named Juan, drowns his sorrows in his alcohol bottle. He washes away his worries and problems for some time, while the effects of the acohol are still very much alive. He hates the fact that he is a bad priest, a bad role model, and a weak person; in order to deny it all, he drinks. By drinking he can run away from his conscience, he can deny everything even his mere existence. Drinking is the only thing that allows this state of denial to exist. I think this ending clearly reflects a very important message in the book. We humans always find insincere ways to deny our cruel realities. We are cowards who constantly look for ways to escape and run away from the things that haunt us. This is a very strong message the book is trying to convey: we need to open our eyes, live life with its realities, and learn to love ourselves because no one is perfect.

.

.

Some questions that were left unanswered:
1) What actually happened to Coral Fellows?

2) Did they really shoot Juan or was he the one that arrived at the little boy's house?

3) What brought a sudden change in the little boy's attitude towards priests?

Hypocrit Religion: A Reality

The Power and The Glory

Pg. 182-203

October 23, 2007

6:14 P.M.

Hypocrisy in Religion

Would it Be Fair to Assume that There is a Lot More "hypocrisy" from the "religious" Than We Care to Acknowledge?

By Lynne Paille

.....Imagine for a second, that the "religious" are illustrated as a mustard tree, and the "non-religious" illustrated as one seed on the mustard tree. Now, the sun is between the horizon and the center of the sky, painting an awesome shadow across the plain. The only problem occurring, though, is that the shadow of the one seed is overwhelming the shadow that should be cast by the whole tree. How, I ask, could this be possible? Enough of the parables. The question is quite simple. How can the number of people that live "godless", and/or "like heathen" create such a disturbance, that their actions totally out-weigh the actions of the "godly"? Would it be fair to assume that there is a lot more "hypocrisy" from the "religious" than we care to acknowledge? In other words, those that call themselves "religious" are only "religious" in name, and not in deed? True, "wickedness" might be hyped up by the media to make it appear that "religion" has no face in the worlds' societies, but what about the atrocities done by the "religious" in the name of "religion"? Are these to be over-looked and ignored now, because of the negativity so eagerly focused on by our media juggernauts?

/
.....Religion. A word introduced sometime during the 13th century into the English language. The origin of the word derives from Greek. Threneo means "to lament, or mourn". Threskeia means "a ceremonial observance". Threskos means "pious". Sebomai means "devotion through adoration". All the words before you mean "religion", or "religious". It is estimated that Christianity has a following of about 2.1 billion people world-wide. Islam, 1.3 billion. Hinduism, 900 million. Chinese traditional religions, 394 million. Buddhism, 376 million. African Traditional and Diasporic, 100 million. Sikhism, 23 million. Juche, 19 million. Spiritism, 15 million. Judaism, 14 million. The list goes on. Let us take into consideration that even the Atheist, though having no "faith" in any "god" or "religion", still lives somewhat by a conscientiousness, giving them a pretty good idea as to what is right, and what is wrong. Let us also not ignore the 25 million or more of those not listed, earlier categorized as the "list" the "goes on". '

,
.....Christianity is the only religion I can honestly say I know something about, whereas the other religions I have only read so much as to gain very little knowledge about (enough for minor conversations), and cannot make a fair analysis when discerning their "righteousness", or lack of "righteousness" thereof. Therefore, I ask that we humble ourselves when considering that my thoughts are not to "trash" Christianity, but rather, to bring all to an understanding with the hopes of a better spiritual growth for ourselves individually, and as a whole. My examples are as follows. Although Christianity teaches that the Son of God died for the sins of the world (I'm assuming the whole world), it seems that Christians spend a lot of time concerned with the lives of homosexuals. I'm a truck driver, and I've seen more billboards about the sins of homosexuality than any other sin, only equaled by that of abortion. After careful examination of the Bible, one must agree that homosexuality is considered a sin, under the categories of "fornication" and "lust". More can be said, obviously, but I think these spell it out to the point. As true as this may be, aren't there more "liars" in the world than homosexuals? Where are all the billboards practically condemning "liars"? From what I've read, the wages of sin is death, and doesn't give us a list as to what sins are seen as more or less worthy of death than the other. Do homosexuals make more of a negative impact on the societies of the world than liars? Are we to believe that liars are more trustworthy than homosexuals? What about people who might be angry with their neighbor without a cause, or better known as people with anger-management issues? Is it better to be in an elevator by yourself with a homosexual, or with a person who might go off the deep-end at any given moment? Is it safer to have a thief watch your valuables, or a homosexual? Aren't there more thieves in the world than homosexuals? Doesn't theft around the world make a more noticeable tear in the fabric of our cultures than the crime of homosexuality? Before I forget, let me speak briefly, if I may, on the issue of abortion while it's still lingering in my thoughts. First of all, it is this "Christian" nation that is allowing abortions to take place. It's no wonder our youth have no respect for "consequence" when they're always given a "way out". Abortion, I conclude, is murder according to the Bible, with only conception from rape as an exception, depending on the individual. The doctors practicing these procedures we must, then, consider murderers. Does God have levels of murder that we're to recognize? Some, like that of doctors to be admired, while others, like that of Jeffrey Dahmer to be scorned? Or, are all murderers in need of repentance? When is enough really enough? Now...let me, I pray, continue with my hopefully non-offensive barrage against the possibility of "hypocrisy" in religion, focusing mainly on the Christian religion. I believe I've read in more than a few places in the Bible that in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek. Paul taught to those that wondered at the decline of the Jewish religion, and increase of the newly-formed Christian religion, that although it might be misconstrued, the Jew was not totally cast away from God, but that rather, the Jew must believe in Jesus as the Messiah in order to be accepted by God. And yet, there are groups, such as the "Ku-Klux Klan" that literally hate people of a "brown skin" persuasion, Jews, and anyone else not Caucasian, and yet consider themselves "Christian", and claim to teach the doctrines of Christ. It's also well known, without even mentioning them, the crimes done by such "religious" groups.

.
......It must be told, that to be "Christian" is to imply one is "Christ-like". With what is being witnessed around the planet by "Christian" groups, we must conclude then that Jesus is a liar, and a thief, and a fornicator, and a murderer, and pretty much every other "sin" we read in the Bible. If not, then we must conclude that Jesus is still perfect, while the rest of us are "hypocrites".

TAKEN FROM:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/pop_print.shtml? content_type=article&content_type_id=143644

.... I think this article exposes a cruel reality. Religion is a search for perfection, however, nothing and no one is perfect. Throughout history, religion has placed itself on a pedestal and people have fallen for the pedestal it is on. Religion has also imposed moral rules that people have to follow in order to be morally correct in the eyes of God. I believe in God, don't get me wrong; however, I think religion exploits one's emotions and the believe in God. Just today, I went to a mass for my friend's father who passed away. I was in awe as the priest exploited the amazing person her father had been to advertise for Catholicism. It was shocking and not so much consoling. Religion always seems to appear when people are more vulnerable or when they need someone to tell them it's ok. I find it very inmoral for religion to advertise itself at the expense of other people's suffering. That's absurd! Religion exploits people when they are at their lowest point with the promise of God and salvation.

A Whiskey Priest thats Mocks Religion But an Exemplary Human Being

The Power and the Glory

Pg. 161-182

.

October 18, 2007

5:35 P.M.

.

.....In today's class we discussed whether or not the whiskey priest was an exemplary character. I have a very strong opinion about this, and this section of the book just reinforced it. In the begginning I thought that he was a coward and a hypocrite. I mean, how can a priest, a moral man, drown his sorrows in alcohol? How could he have a daughter and a lover? Why would he even consider giving up his beliefs like Padre Jose did? Society has this image of what a perfect priest must be. A perfect priest is a man that spreads morality, faith, and belief; a priest is not your friend, he is someone that needs to guide you to the right path. It is obvious that he is not an exemplary religious figure; he is a clear representation of the hypocrisy in religion. When he gets infuriated by the woman's confession in Page 173, shows how his frustation spills over into his own work. He condemns her for not confessing her "real sins."I mean, who is he to condemn her for being a good person or for confessing her sins? He is the one that is constantly beating himself up for being a bad priest and Christian. He is the one that is fully of mortal sins, isn't he? Has he even tried to absolve his own sins and make peace with them? No! "But because it was so peaceful he was all the more aware of his own sin as he prepared to take the Elements...(176)" Although, I strongly believe that he is not an exemplary religious figure, towards the middle of the book, I realized I was judging him unjustly.

.

.....As I continued reading the novel his hardships became obvious; he was just another one of the tortured souls out there. 'What was the good of confessionn when you loved the result of your crim (176)." Eventhough he is a priest, he is also a human being. I had him up in a podium, expecting him to be amazing and completely pure (Just like society portrays priests. Society also expects them to live up to their reputation). However, no one is perfect, and just because he is priest doesn't mean that he is automatically perfect.

.

......He is an exemplary human being. He has survived fevers, hunger, and fear with extreme courage and strength. Very few people would be able to survive the hardships that he has faced during the last couple of years. The physical pain is just part of it, the psychological torture is a greater one. Imagine constantly living in solitude, escaping from your own beliefs. What if you couldn't voice your beliefs, your thoughts? "It ought to be possible for a man to be happy here, if he were not so tied to fear and suffering - unhappiness too can become a habit like piety...He felt immense envy of all those people who had confessed to him and been absolved(173)." And through all the ups and downs he still has a soul. He is still willing to give to the people around him and to the ones that he encounters. I mean in the end of this section he gave his last 40 pesos so that the school master could buy food and necessities for the people of the town. He is a good man, no one in his position would have considered giving up their last pesos for somebody else's necessities.

The Power and the Glory

The Power and The Glory

Pgs. 140-158

October 16, 2007

7:32 P.M.

.

.....In this section of the novel, the impact that Coral Fellows had on the whiskey priest is quite obvious. Although he didn't even know her name ("Coral - so that was the child's name (146)."), she was a reliable friend; with her he was save. "He realized how much he had counted on this child. She was the only person who could help him without endangering herself (141)." Coral had been his only hope. She had become his savior, someone right in a world gone wrong. He had returned to the plantation because he hadn't eaten for two days and needed a safe, resting place. The priest thought Coral could provide all this for him. Finally, he could stop running away for a day or two and regain some of the energy lost in jail. He would be well fed, even if it was only bananas. Throughout the novel the reader has been misled to believe that Coral was just another of the characters the priest would encounter during his trip; however, in this Chapter it becomes obvious that Coral represented so much more to him than initially thought. Coral was everything that he wanted his own daughter to be; Coral showed him more respect, humanity, and compassion than Brigitta ever did. " 'My daughter, Oh my daughter.' The words seemed to contain all that he felt himself of repentance, longing and unhappy love (147)." Although the priest is guilty of all his mortal sins, Coral showed him that someone could still respect and trust him; he could once again trust someone. He deserves treatment like anybody else; his sins do not make him a complete criminal in our world. Everyone is sinful, why should be priest be singled out amongst the human race?

.

.....Not only is he singled out by everybody else, but his conscience does not let him live. He constantly beats himself up as a bad influence. In everything situation and danger that he encounters during his journey, he always ends up thinking about his sins. He considers himself an evil person, that has broken the trust of the people, such a dissappointment to Christianity. He considers himself a hypocrite and that's the reason he drinks. He drinks to run away from his problems, to leave his conscience behind for an hour or two. However, his problems don't vanish, once the effect of alcohol has worn out it all comes back to him. Your conscience and thoughts are the only two things a human being cannot runaway from. They are always there, even when you aren't in a conscious state of mind. In my opinion, they are part of your soul, of your humanity. Just like a humans need oxygens to survive, they also need thoughts and a conscience. The priest is a victim of humanity and of a cruel, unfair society.

Video Relating to The Power and The Glory

October 3, 2007

6:35 P.M.

This video relates to The Power and The Glory, because it shows how religion causes problems even today. Not only religious differences cause conflicts, however, different beliefs can lead to violence and death. The Palestinian Christians are being persecuted by Muslims. They are constantly tortured and harrassed, just like priest are and were harrased by the Red Shirts in The Power and The Glory. This video shows how history is constantly repeating itself, and how there are recurring themes throughout history.

NYT Article: Forensic, Demonstrative, Deliberate Rhetoric

Editorial

Mr. Putin’s Game

Published: October 2, 2007

Russians and a lot of Russia watchers have been wondering not if, but how Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, would hold on to power. We fear we got our answer yesterday.

Mr. Putin, who must step down as president next year, announced that he will head the election list of the dominant party, United Russia, in December’s parliamentary election. That will guarantee him a seat in the lower house, from which he could become prime minister. Mr. Putin said that it was still too early to think about that, and it would depend on whether the next Russian president was “a decent, capable and effective person” with whom he could work. Conveniently, Russia’s Constitution puts the prime minister in direct line to succeed the country’s president, should that job description prove too much for Mr. Putin’s successor to handle.

Mr. Putin has insisted all along that his goal was to create a Russia that is strong, modern and internationally respected. This crass political manipulation will have the opposite effect, weakening Russia in the eyes of the world and eventually its own citizens.

After the chaos of the first post-Communist years, Mr. Putin restored a measure of security and stability. He has also done serious damage to the country’s fragile democratic institutions, creating a powerful and secretive presidential bureaucracy, imposing authoritarian controls over government and the press, and turning the Parliament into a rubber stamp. In effect, he led Russia back to its historical dependence on one powerful leader, and he did this with the support of a large majority of the Russian people.

We cannot begrudge the Russians a measure of stability and prosperity after what they have gone through. But what they need now is to start building a true democracy on the basis of that stability and prosperity.

We hope Mr. Putin will rethink this cynical game. If he does run for Parliament, he could use his seat to share his experience and skills with a new political generation — but we doubt it. If his only intention is to hold on to power, then he will be proclaiming that institutions don’t matter, only the person manipulating them. Russia’s been there, too long. That is not what it needs now.

TYPES OF RHETORIC

Forensic: Past tense. Inspiring guilt and punishment.

1. We fear we got our answer yesterday.

2. After the chaos of the first post-Communist years, Mr. Putin restored a measure of security and stability. He has also done serious damage to the country’s fragile democratic institutions, creating a powerful and secretive presidential bureaucracy, imposing authoritarian controls over government and the press, and turning the Parliament into a rubber stamp. In effect, he led Russia back to its historical dependence on one powerful leader, and he did this with the support of a large majority of the Russian people.

3. We cannot begrudge the Russians a measure of stability and prosperity after what they have gone through.

4. Russia’s been there, too long. That is not what it needs now.

Demonstrative: Present tense. Symbolizes values.

1. Conveniently, Russia’s Constitution puts the prime minister in direct line to succeed the country’s president, should that job description prove too much for Mr. Putin’s successor to handle.

2. Mr. Putin has insisted all along that his goal was to create a Russia that is strong, modern and internationally respected. This crass political manipulation will have the opposite effect, weakening Russia in the eyes of the world and eventually its own citizens.

3. Russians and a lot of Russia watchers have been wondering not if, but how Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, would hold on to power.

4. We hope Mr. Putin will rethink this cynical game.

5. If his only intention is to hold on to power, then he will be proclaiming that institutions don’t matter, only the person manipulating them.

Deliberative: Future tense. Represents choices.

1. Mr. Putin said that it was still too early to think about that, and it would depend on whether the next Russian president was “a decent, capable and effective person” with whom he could work.

2. But what they need now is to start building a true democracy on the basis of that stability and prosperity.

3. Mr. Putin, who must step down as president next year, announced that he will head the election list of the dominant party, United Russia, in December’s parliamentary election. That will guarantee him a seat in the lower house, from which he could become prime minister.

4. If he does run for Parliament, he could use his seat to share his experience and skills with a new political generation — but we doubt it.

Role of Women and Judas is Reborn

The Power and the Glory

Pg. 72-103

September 1st, 2007

5:00 P.M.

.

........In this section we are introduced to the town of Concepcion, and to Maria, once the priest's lover. Just as well, the reader quickly finds out about Brigitta, the priest's daughter. The more the reader indulges in the novel, the more obvious the role of women in this society becomes. Graham Greene is clearly portraying a very feministic point of view in his novel, constantly placing women in the dominating role compared to men. In this society, women are the moving force behind the men; the men might take care of the action, but it's the women that actually plan it. Women are the motor of the society, the control men and can manipulate them to get what they want. Women have the upper hand. In Part I, we were introduced to Coral Fellows, an American girl that gave the priest shelter and protected him from the lieutenant when no one else would. She comforted him when he felt alone in the world; it was probably thanks to her help that he was able to make it to Concepcion in the first place.
.
.......Once again, in this section the reader witnesses Maria's willingness to help him escape alive. Right after the service, when the police came into the village, Maria was aware that the smell of wine in the priest's breath would give away his true identity. In order to prevent this from happening, she gave him "a small raw onion" to bite, "it was a trick all women seemed to know (73)." Just as well, the priest was about to give up; he had no plan, "It was the end (72)." However, as soon as he saw Maria he thought she would have a plan, Maria prevented his capture. She gave him the tools, and the strength confidence he needed in order to continue running away. Just as well, her actions symbolize how astute women are, and how they can get around the obstacles men place. Another clear example that shows how Maria is in control is the wine bottle and the priest’s case. She knows that the bottle will bring trouble not only for the priest if it’s ever found but also for Concepcion, so she breaks it. “I’m not going to bring trouble on you and everyone else. I’ve broken the bottle (78).” She takes the initiative without even hearing what the priest (man) has to say about it. This example shows how women have the instinct to protect people around them, unlike men; they know when to avoid risks that could put everyone they love in danger. However, it isn’t only the actions that Greene describes that allow the reader to connect women as the dominating character. The subtle sentences he uses to praise women are also evident. "...women were appallingly practical; they built new plans at once out of the ruins of the old (72), " and "it was a trick all women seemed to know (73)."

…..Another example of women’s dominating role over men is Brigitta, the priest’s daughter. He’s a priest, and he should be ashamed of having an illegitimate child. Any other priest would probably hate this child; she would be the cause of rumors and shame tainting his name. However, “He felt weak with longing (81)” when he saw her. In the scene where the priest is grabbing the papers from his case, Greene makes it obvious to the reader how Brigitta is the one that’s in control of the situation. “He was appalled again by her maturity (81),” how could she impress him so much, she was only seven years old! Just as well, when he wants to give her a kiss “she screeched at him in her ancient voice and giggled (81).” An innocent seven year old that doesn’t want to be kissed by her father and is actually able to pull away? That scene clearly shows how this little girl obviously controls the priest.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.
….. The mestizo, I think, will play a very important role in the remainder of the storyline. Since the mestizo was first introduced into the storyline, Greene has always foreshadowed his suspicious nature. “It was as if he had a secret purpose which nobody but the priest must hear (85).” The priest attempted to ignore him because “uneasiness was lodged in his brain (85).” Another very important quote that clearly foreshadows the mestizo’s intention is: “…it was like a slot machine into which any coin could be fitted, even a cheater’s blank disk (89).” Another very important aspect of this first chapter is the allusion of the mestizo to Judas. “His conscience ceased to accuse him of uncharity. He knew. He was in the presence of Judas (91).” Judas was the biblical character that betrayed Jesus in the Bible for some gold coins. If the mestizo was Judas and “he was the man that wanted to betray him (95),” then that would make the priest Jesus if the metaphor continued. What is significant about this allusion is that it portrays the priest as the Savior. He is like Jesus willing to die for his cause rather than giving in to sin. He represents the faith of religion, and its desire to continue its influence on people. The priest ultimately represents religion as he is the only living symbol of the Church. All priests are dead, except for Father Jose which represents a weak link in the religious institution. This means that only the priest can save religion as a whole, it’s up to him to save religion from complete extinction.

…..With all this said, the last words the mestizo says to the priest are very perturbing. “Of course, he had every reason to be angry; he had lost seven hundred pesos. He shrieked hopelessly, ‘I don’t forget a face.’ (102)” This clearly foreshadows that this isn’t the last time the priest is going cross paths with the mestizo; he obviously wants revenge and is willing to do whatever it takes to get it.