1. Ending of (Burmese) Days
The climax of George Orwell’s Burmese Days is not in the valor of John Flory; resulting from his actions in the riot instilled by U Po Kyin’s efforts of libel against Doctor Versawami. Climax comes after the matter when it seems Flory is nearly to attain that late life he once believed to have lead: the past in the form of Ma Hla May’s dismay in full blind rage— though egged on by U Po Kyin’s efforts, the crocodile striking with the weakest spot— arriving at a church service, a funeral for for a mutilated young Englishman wherein he, as well as most everyone of note in the area was an attendee; including Elizabeth.
Confirming in the Burmese spoken shrieks, the whole message of her fury; and obliterating any possible future for Flory’s late life with Elizabeth.
Having shortly dealt with the outburst, the assembly dispersed and Flory made one final, futile and; textually visceral in its depiction of his pathetic desperation in attempt at attaining the conquest of Elizabeth’s hand in life. Rejected, he retires to to his abode. In a fast-moving-slow-motion-page-turning-scene Flory uses his gun to shoot Flo, a dog, and then turn it to his chest and pull the trigger on himself.
Subsequently committing suicide, which was quickly covered up by Doctor Versawami. Having regained his position in the society around them as a result of sharing Flory’s glory as his friend and actions during the riot, he was more or less for the time vindicated of the slander from U Po Kyin’s propoganda and about to be elected by Flory’s vote a seat at the English club. However, being dead the Doctor was left undefended from the unrelenting power-hungry crocodile and further seditious slanting slander reduced him to nothing.
U Po Kyin, who the story began its telling with a description of, did not get to bask in his moment of Might for long either and died just after achieving all he envied. Leaving his wife fearful of Karma giving it’s due to him according to tradition.
Elizabeth moved merrily on. Much of Flory’s misery was seemingly as an effect of his own solipsistic projecting personal prides— though more akin to fetishes— and insecurities onto her. He envied a life he never let leave his head until his own actions eventually became his own undoing, then dying fully by his own hand.
2. Exploring Envy
Prior to the culminating chapter of his 1934 book, Orwell wrote a stark remark against the covetous cognitive decline relating to the evocation of Envy:
“Envy is a horrible thing. It is unlike all other suffering in that there is no disguising it, no elevating it into tragedy. It is more than merely painful, it is disgusting.”
Contrasting the negative nature embodied by George Orwell’s characterization, is a more utilitarian approach to the supposed sin. Having dictated into his diabolical diatribe The Satanic Bible on the more useful aspects of the instinctual drifting towards carnal desires, the Black Pope, Anton Szandor LaVey wrote:
“Envy means to look with favor upon the possessions of others, and to be desirous of obtaining similar things for oneself. Envy and greed are the motivating forces of ambition— and without ambition, very little of any importance would be accomplished.”
Then with a somewhat surprising disagreement to the radical egoism presented in LaVey’s familial philosophy, Ayn Rand in her book Return Of The Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, purported Envy to actually be a simple place holder, substituting for, “the hatred of the good for being good” in emotional form. Dedicating an entire chapter to the conscious concept of coveting, ‘The Age of Envy’ denotes and admonishes an entire epoch of human behavior as being dragged down by it.
“Superficially, the motive of those who hate the good is taken to be envy. A dictionary definition of envy is: ‘1. A sense of discontent or jealousy with regard to another’s advantages, success, possessions, etc. 2. A desire for an advantage possessed by another.’ (The Random House Dictionary, 1968) The same dictionary adds the following elucidation: ‘To envy is to feel resentful because someone else possesses or has achieved what one wishes oneself to possess or to have achieved.’
This covers a great many emotional responses, which come from different motives. In a certain sense the second definition is the opposite of the first, and the more innocent of the two…”
Typical to Randian fashion, though surprising to her making of Selfishness into a Virtue; Envy is seen in a negative because, (to use a term from LaVey as descriptor,) in unmitigated cases of psychic vampires— at least in her mind, in her ideal of the capitalist utopia Objectivism serves as philosophical justification for— leeching off those with the momentum from originality and with their own Roarkian brains and brawn. Disregarding Envy as sinful not because it breaks the commandment of ‘Thou Shall Not Covet…’, it is cast aside as it seems mental masturbation for people without many original ideas— what PT Barnum may have (possibly) called the ‘sucker born every minute.’
“The feeling is less innocent, if it amounts to ‘I want to put on a front…’ The result is a second-hander who lives beyond his means, struggling to ‘keep up with the Joneses.’
[…]
Envy is part of this creature’s feeling, but only the superficial, semirespectable part… because it seems to imply a desire for material possessions, which is a human being’s desire but, deep down, the creature has no such desire…”
Orwell and Rand differ in disregard to Envy; wherein LaVey said it to be a motivating factor for desire— a form of what in later books he would call and explain more, Erotic Crystallization Inertia (ECI for short) to draw from for one’s own thing. Egoistically, the Black Pope did just that in making Satanism; Rand in her re-defining and hijacking of the term ‘selfish’ also did the same— which as pointed out by LaVey, is or could be derived from ambition spurred by Envy. A read of her Journals proves as much as a read of Anthem does; even in her essay The Age of Envy she continues to prove that idea, even if unknowingly. Echoing:
“In regard to one’s own feelings, only a rigorously conscientious habit of introspection can enable one to be certain of the nature and causes of one’s emotional responses.”
To her point, that both Orwell and LaVey would likely all toast with one another to; is a simple question, even if it causes one to freeze in their sockets: What is a desire (or thought) without action and some attainment? Is attainment full success leading to a moment of Might? what is total success? or is such also another way of asking about Might in failure?
Illusory, why is it so grandiose?
No comments:
Post a Comment