197. RALPH WALDO EMERSON: Envoys of Beauty
This quote is taken from Ralph Waldo Emerson’s 1836 essay Nature, which can be read in full here. The essay laid the foundations of the Transcendentalism movement and launched Emerson’s career as a writer and public speaker. Henry David Thoreau was greatly influenced by Emerson and wrote his famous book, Walden, after living alone in the woods on land owned by Emerson. This quote was also the basis of the science fiction short story Nightfall by Isaac Asimov.
RELATED COMICS
Carl Sagan Make the most of this Life.
Carl Sagan Pale Blue Dot.
Bill Hicks It’s Just a Ride.
Roger Ebert On Kindness.
Check out the new range of Zen Pencils mugs! Plus get 15% off until Friday.
This has to be one of the most ignorant quote ever featured in Zen pencils:
If stars were only visible in thousand year intervals it would be a good thing?
Clearly Ralphie-boy here had no idea how big of a impact stars have left to ALL human cultures: inspiring art, helping to navigate trough land and sea, the desire to understand the universe around us and planting the seed for desire to see them in first-hand trough space-travel.
More likely scenario would be that mankind would think that the end-times have come: insanity, wanton violence would erupt and civilizations would crumble.
This implies that Ralphie-boy was trying to sound smart about a subject he had no clue about…
…A common trait shared by most of the commentors in this site!
HEYOOOO!
Wow… that’s pretty amazing.
First, you take an idea that is clearly a metaphor and deliberately misinterpret it… pretending that Emerson intended his quote as a literal prediction of what the world would be like without stars (most of the time) when it’s obvious to everyone with a brain that he intended no such thing.
Then you come up with an insulting nickname for a well-respected author in an attempt to make people who love that author feel hatred towards you.
After that, you continue the first two ad nauseam just to make sure nobody’s lunch is sitting well after reading your comment. After all, why should anyone have good digestion?
And you wind it all up by insulting the readership directly. Just in case someone wasn’t bright enough to realize the rest of what you said was insulting.
Well then. I have to say… bravo. A+ trolling there. You’ve clearly spent a lot of time and effort making yourself an expert at making other people feel miserable. It’s obvious that you’ve become a top notch spoiler of everything good and decent. This calls for some kind of reward, I’d say. Treat yourself to a brick to the face and put it on my tab.
🙂
I fail to how MY view of Ralphie-boys quote is wrong, maybe without these pointless metaphors there woudn’t be any room to “misinterpret” it (but then it would just say “fighting is bad” and people would call Ralphie-boy an idiot for pointing out the obvious). Does this imply Ralphie-boy was incompetent writer?
You deside!
As for the “insulting the readership directly” part i must say that it was clearly intended as a joke poking fun at some inane commentors on this site (or did you not notice the HEYOO at the end?). I find that getting annoyed by a joke usually means the annoyed person sees themselves in it and get upset because of that (where as the rest of us find it funny).
But clearly you don’t fit to that mold, I mean you did (instead of starting a constructive conversation) shot down my well put together argument with “you are just a mean troll for pointing out things that you shouldn’t point out because it the subject-matter seem stupid” argument and implied I should smack myself with a prick.
Or maybe this all implies YOU are the troll for sidetracking the argument with non-constructive complaining and suggestions of self-harm for all those who disagree with you?
Hm. Since you are looking for a constructive conversation, I would like to give it a try:
I will start by commenting on the content of your comment, and then go on to some formal aspects of your writing.
Your point of view is valid within its own assumptions. One such assumption is that Emerson’s quote tries to depict the logical consequences the one-time-appearance of stars would have on human society. So, you talk about the negative consequences this phenomenon would have, probably because you think they should be represented, too. I, on the other hand, think that Emerson uses the stars as a metaphor to say “If people had something of extraordinary beauty reminding them of God and his love for the world, they would not fight each other as much. Unfortunately, the human mind has a propensity to notice things more if they are not always there, so the constant beauty of the world surrounding us is ignored most of the time.” Metaphores only work in a very specific context and for a very limited range of logical consequences. So, criticizing the quote for a lack of logical coherence implies that you chose to ignore its metaphorical meaning, which in my opinion should at least be added to your point of view. If you are leaving it out, your interpretation seems incomplete, which weakens your argument.
As for the formal aspects of your comment: Calling someone by a nickname while criticizing them implies a lack of respect. I am not calling you “Coily-Boy” for that reason – because while I may disagree with your point of view and how you present it, I still respect you and your right to your own opinion. The effect of using derogatory expressions is that you take your argument from a fact-based to a personal, emotional level, which does not help your argument because contentwise, you are focussing on logical inferences. Showing no respect for someone whose metaphorical style you do not like does not help strenghthen your argument, and neither do general accusations (“common trait”, “most of the commentors”) towards the people you would actually like to convince of your opinion.
Also, using capital letters to virtually shout at somebody and making orthographic mistakes as you did in your second comment weakens your argument, because it implies that you have to shout to make your argument clear or valid (because it is not strong enough on its own to stand on respectful, factual presentation), and that you are not putting proper care into the conversation (since you did not make too many mistakes in your first comment, I assume you neither lack education nor suffer from dyslexia, but simply did not proofread your second comment).
In short, while your point of view is sound from a strictly logical, scientifical point of view, it falls short in acknowledging the metaphorical nature of the quote. The addition of a derogatory nickname and an insult towards the other readers/commentators further weakens your argument because it evokes the impression that it is not convincing on a purely factual basis, but that you have to diminish your “opponents” in order for your argument to be convincing.
Brilliant discussion! Very entertaining and educational
I enjoyed it too. Especially the chuckle brought on by the scathing critique bestowed upon a quote from a 17th century poet by a pseudonym toting keyboard warrior.
Mia’s counter to Mr(s) Pseudonym’s attack was quite beautiful.
Who knows, maybe in 200 years from now, someone will be critical of “More likely scenario would be that mankind would think that the end-times have come: insanity, wanton violence would erupt and civilizations would crumble.”
Oh how they will laugh at the author’s attempt to “sound smart about a subject he had no clue about…”
*19th century
Wow, this has to be the first constructive comment I’ve seen in this whole site: usually comment section is filled with circle-jerking and dismissing people with different opinions as trolls.
I believe that metaphors are used when someone wants to sound smart or “deep” when describing something obvious: “X was red like the summer sunset” instead of just saying “X was red”
This can be seen here when Ralphie-boy goes for a long tangent about stars instead of just pointing out that “people should appreciate the world around them”. This shows Ralphie-boy had nothing new to bring to the table which further proves that he should have kept his mouth shut and try to try again when he really would have something new and profound to say. In my opinion people who deserve respect have to do something remarkable in the field of science or be a good person for those less fortunate of them (such as Albert Schweitzer).
From there we get to the “lack of respect” part: Respect is something that one earns, it should never be given by default (for that would make respect meaningless). Therefore Ralphie-boy is good enough for a person who has nothing new to say and uses pointless metaphors to hide that.
My counter-argument on the other hand easily commands respect for it points out the flaws in Ralphie-boys quote and is simple enough for a average internet-user to understand it (although it still might be too complex for the worst examples).
Also I did not use “derogatory-terms” (I.E calling Ralphie-boy a Cracker-cookie), calling someone an idiot is to inform that person that he is an idiot. Using any other terms would be talking down to a person in a fear of either
A. them not understanding the meaning of the word “idiot”
or
B. hurting their pwecious widdle feewings by informing them that they are an idiot
If A was true they wouldn’t be writing books like Ralphie-boy (they should instead be writing internet-comments. HEYOOO!) and there would be no argument about said book (or this case quote)
and if B is true they should grow up and start to live in the real world where one doesn’t automatically get to be right just because they don’t like differing opinions. I have some hope in internet users that they don’t fall into either of these categories and therefore I don’t sugarcoat my opinions.
As for the capital letters: not counting the word HEYOOO (which should always be written in capital letters) which is used to punctuate a joke (or to point out a obvious joke for internet users, which tragically seems to work only 50% of the time), capital letters are the only way to emphasize a word in this here site (for there is no option for underline words as far as I know). Also if capital letters are supposed to be read as “shouting” then does that mean people are shouting when they use the word “I”.
No, you were most likely thinking a situation where someone capitalizes a whole sentence (I.E PEANUTS ARE FUNNY) which is a easy mistake to make.
Also I was top of my English-class in vocational school (or technical school as they say in America) so don’t you go critiquing my english friend!
In short your first paragraph that countered my argument with a valid counter-argument about the subject at hand was good but the rest was merely complaining about my comment itself which pointlessly slowed down the argument (for I had spare space for answers to these side notes instead of the argument itself) . I’ll give it 3/5 for good effort.
You said:
‘…This shows Ralphie-boy had nothing new to bring to the table which further proves that he should have kept his mouth shut and try to try again when he really would have something new and profound to say’.
All your comments, do not bring anything new to the table, so in your own logic you should shut up and try again when you have something profund to say.
Follow your own advice!
Have you even tried reading Self-confidence by ‘Ralphie-boy’, if you do it you might see something very, very profound in there, and maybe you understand him. But who am I kidding you are probably just going to say the thing you repeated over and over your arguments, so why should I bother, why shloud anyone.
But really, follow your own advice!
Ohh, now I understand (after reading this book you recommended) why I didn’t like Ralphie-boys quote: It’s not because it is naive and shows his lack of understanding in basic human behavior.
It’s because he’s a proto-objectivist:
Individual is being suppressed by societys rules and therefore society is bad!
One should always speak their “ideas” no matter what the opposition, society or common sense says.
Conformity is bad because world doesn’t need plumbers or quantum-physicists, it needs “thinkers” that just “think” all day long and spout whatever comes to their minds as truth.
Solitude is more favorable option because pooping into a hole in the forest is way better that indoor-plumbing.
Man, if he had ever met Ayan Rand they would’ve gotten along really well.
Why would he think this way? Well I tell you: like all “non-conformists” he though that nobody got his great ideas was because they were sheep of Babylon instead of these ideas being just plain stupid.
I despise people like Randy-boy: society brings us many good things, such as: state funded schools, police, cheap health-care and indoor-plumbing just to name a few.
Anyone who doesn’t like this can go live in the forest: except few capable individuals, most will crawl back within hours after they realize that poop doesn’t go away by a press of a button and it’s cold at night.
Next time you should recommend some material that paint the author in positive light.
Seriously people: Poop goes away from your house like magic.
What could possibly be better than that?
TL;DR: Look here, I’m very smart. Metaphors are used to make you sound deep. Yep, I am very very smart.
I do think that’s a simile you got there in your example, though.
Yep. 🙂
Interesting point @Tesla – you pointed out in your own opinion respect had to be earned. If that’s the case, why would you be upset if people insulted you? At no point have you demonstrated “having done something remarkable in the field of science” nor can you prove so (I’m sure everyone on the internet is 100% a genius). Likewise even if you think the author and comment section is ignorant, or if Emerson is a bad writer, mocking and “joking” about how ignorant and/or stupid both parties are would hardly be being someone who’s a “good person for those less fortunate of them”. Rather, if you claim to be as intelligent as you are, you would recognize that the entire point of your prior and consistent comments was to provoke, which ironically has succeeded in this reply.
Perhaps the quote wasn’t the greatest, yet is setting the quote to art a bad thing? Perhaps he doesn’t bring anything new to the table, but are reminders a bad thing? After all – history has a tendency to repeat itself. We ourselves forget things all the time, and if an author attempts to remind what has already been expressed that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bad. In fact your own argument that the author should have not attempted to write until “when he really would have something new and profound to say”, has the same flaw that you recommend in that your OWN argument. As you said, the author should “instead of just pointing out that ‘people should appreciate the world around them'” – but that itself I’d wager is nothing “new and profound”, meaning if you were trying to critique you fell into your own trap.
In addition, while yes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, the fact that in your initial comment you posted – “This implies that Ralphie-boy was trying to sound smart about a subject he had no clue about” and then immediately ended your comment without giving constructive feedback can only mean you had no intent in helping in the first place. At least from this point your own comment and reply, I have reasonable confidence to suspect that it was made in malice (after all you also claim to hold the author with no respect). If this is the case, then you would already be hopelessly biased against the author and additionally dismissive of any comments supporting him.
Finally you also seem to be of the argument that the author’s view are also bad since they go against society and it’s tiresome since there are good benefits to society, which yes there are. However, in almost any aspect of the world there exists negative aspects as well such as oppressive regimes and specific social groups (such as the KKK), which bring and strengthen negative aspects the world can do without. This, as I’m sure you know, is nuance. Nuance is present with all topics and as you’ve shown, is present within all your arguments, so hopefully I can get away with assuming you understand what it is. Nevertheless there’s also nuance present in the comic as well. To claim that it covers and MUST be only this and MY definition shows a closed and somewhat narrow mind point does it not? In addition, the fact that you “rated” the previous commenter’s replies – jokingly or not – suggests that you do have somewhat of a narcissistic personality. While I’m not attacking that as good or bad, it is BY DEFINITION something that suggests your own viewpoint would be narrowed by your own opinions and thoughts. Perhaps this assumption is wrong, which I allow to consider. You may respond that this has nothing to do with the argument, which I reply with your own statement:
“Also I was top of my English-class in vocational school (or technical school as they say in America) so don’t you go critiquing my english friend!”
Statements that “aren’t part of the argument” are present within arguments all the time. In fact this statement establishes ethos (validation of character), to bolster your argument while my claim of narcissism is technically also against your ethos (personality creates a bais which may not be previous recognized by self). So while calling people names, belittling particular persons and saying something is ignorant without giving reasons why and assuming the entire comment section is physic, can read your mind, and would understand automatically isn’t a great argument, it is one nevertheless. In addition, you complain that in general people can’t accept differing opinions, yet you yourself (besides the reply from Mia) have hardly accepted any differing opinions either.
(I honestly don’t think anyone will read this, but if you did – wow)
Who pissed in your wheatabix? Your trolling is repetitive & trite. You restate the same point over & over as if repetition will make it true & bring nothing new to the discussion or actually answer any of the points put to you by other writers. Unlike Nikola Telsa I find your work trite, derivative & uninteresting & give you an F
I have to restate my point over and over again so even the slowest of internet cretins can follow what I have to say.
And how can I bring anything new to the table when Nikola Tesla didn’t either: he just called me a troll and complained how my comment ruined his day for making him think of the quote instead of just accepting it as it is just because Ralphie-boy used to be relevant?
It is you sir who brought nothing new to the table and just complained that I was a troll for having a differing opinion on the quote.
I suggest you really think before commenting or you’ll just be part of the cesspool of internet comments that plagues the world.
‘I suggest you really think before commenting or you’ll just be part of the cesspool of internet comments that plagues the world’
Again, follow your own advice!
I see you didn’t think before giving me free tips on how to point out that Ralphie-boy is a prime example of a person who seriously shouldn’t be defended by any sane person (it kinda demolishes your side of the argument without me even trying you see). It’s like if I tried to defend Mao Zedong as a capable leader by suggesting you to read about the Great Leap Forward and it’s effects.
Now we will see that because I didn’t hammer the point home hard enough, ADN will not get it and instead just calls me a troll.
Or ADN will just say “I didn’t get the point of the book” and that is because I am capable deconstructing the books message instead of just blindly accepting it (that (the previous sentence) was the part where I bring out previous points so that even the slowest users can follow and hopefully get my point (although I’m not holding my breath over it).
The quote doesn’t even explicitly say that fighting is bad. It means different things to everyone and maybe it means what you say it means, but it would help to be less disrespectful. It seems like you have a personal goal to piss off as many people as possible, hence why we brand you as a troll. If you even care, to me the quote says that the stars are beautiful and nobody notices because they are always there. In light of recent events, to me it says that when a man drives through a crowd and kills 84 people, we are suddenly reminded that hey, it’s kind of beautiful that everyone else in trucks and cars are not trying to kill as many people as possible every day.
Oh wow, using a recent tragedy to bolster your argument…
That’s really low: If I disagree with you, I’m an asshole and therefore you win without any effort.
Well two can play that game friendo: I believe my point of view is correct because Americans bombed a MSF-hospital in Syria.
Or how CIA destabilized Iran to battle communism.
OR if that didn’t do it for you I’m gonna use this ace in my sleeve: I’m right because Stalin was a douche!
Bam! How are you gonna counter these factoids without sounding like a big meanie-head?
What’s with the “Ralphie-boy?”
https://www.zenpencils.com/comic/67-richard-feynman-the-universe-in-a-glass/
You’ve got a lot more work to do @teslacoil if you’re starting the War on Metaphor. It seems strange that THIS is what triggered you. Think of all those metaphors that need to be straightened lest our knowledge be crooked and missing.
Why care if something is said that doesn’t add anything new? Why blame someone for doing something? From a purely material perspective wouldn’t it be preferable to have a larger sample size of a population rather than a smaller one? Like when a turtle lays 500 eggs with the hope of a few making it? Isn’t it better he write something and possibly fail with the option that he may of written something of value? Why inflame failure?
It seems like a lot of work to fight a literary device – why not pick something more manageable?
@Teslacoil. But the overwhelming majority of people DO take the stars (the visible universe) for granted. Hardly notice them. Don’t even look most of the time.
We squabble, argue, and kill each other for the sake of all our little terrestrial ideologies, and think they are so important. We forget how insignificant and transitory they mostly are.
The point, I believe, is that if the view of the cosmos were only visible one day a year, then we’d have to take notice, recall who/what we really are, and just maybe put our mutual intolerance and savagery aside.
Nope, the author (I.E Ralphie-boy) incorrectly assumes the world would be better if the stars were visible once in 1000 years and thinks that is very profoundly said.
This proves that he has very shallow understanding of human behavior: people used to freak out from a mere solar-eclipse and those weren’t even that rare.
Now think that the Romans would have lived in a world within Ralphie-boys scenario: one night the sky just lights up.
Nobody has any idea why this is happening or what does it mean and that would causes massive panic ranging from mere mass suicides to civilization ending chaos. That would have cause unbelievable scientific and social regression which would have pushed mankind back to the stone-age or worse.
This factoid makes Ralphie-boys quote as profound as:
World would be a better place if every meal was ice-cream.
Maybe Ralphie-boy should have researched some factoids before spouting nonsense for now he is forever know as a naive idiotwho should have kept his trap shut.
Also i’m pretty sure you shoudn’t down-play our “terrestrial ideologies” as insignificant: after all it is all thanks to them mankind even gives a damn about the stars and wishes to go see them one day (and until any aliens arrive they are the only ones we got so they are more than worth fighting for)
The quote isn’t about the stars themselves, it’s about how a lot of the violence and trouble between man is because we take things for granted, and about how if those things were special or unique, it might make us not fight.
The why the hell didn’t he focus on those instead of pointlessly bringing stars to the conversation.
Because it’s poetry and not a literal instruction manual?
Pff, that’s peoples excuse for all bad writing:
“It’s poetry man: it supposed to be beautiful and you’re not suppose to thing about it too hard”
This is why Asimovs version (Nightfall) of the story was better: it added scientific thinking into it and that what made it much more compelling and interesting.
This is why Mr. Asimov is still a highly regarded author where as Ralphie-boy has become non-relevant and forgotten.
“Pff, that’s peoples excuse for all bad writing:”
The fact that you can’t understand things that aren’t spelled out clearly for you is not a failing of the poet or poetry in general, that’s your limitation. You might want to work on it so you can enjoy more things.
And the fact that you constructed your whole point on the first sentence of my argument that shows either
A. You are too busy of a person to read the whole comment
or
B. You didn’t come up with any actual counter-points to my argument that stories and quotes should have depth.
Either of these points clearly imply that you of all people shouldn’t give people pointers on “understanding what they read”
Emerson is bad writing. Ha ha!
I can agree. Good to see someone shares my view of him being a hack writer who has no idea about human psyche and should have focused on writing his pwecious widdle poems instead.
You talk about science but have you actually even thought this through?
If the night sky will light up once in a thousand years, it will have done so approximately a 100 times since the time man developed the ability to speak (very roughly estimated at 100.000 years ago). Surely, at the dawn of the Roman empire, it will have been a known phenomenon ? You talk about science but I don’t see you backing any of this up in a scientific way? Let’s hear it.
You assume mankind would go crazy based on the fact that people have gone crazy over solar eclipses. If you know as much about humanity as you say you do, you should take into consideration that the darkening of a day is an entirely different phenomenon than the lighting up of the night. In fact, its opposite, and might be experienced as such (perhaps as a sign of divinity). Again, back up your “science” talk.
Also, wouldn’t this once in a thousand year occurrence get burned into the collective consciousness of mankind and work its way in the civilizations in religious forms? As it has done with so many other things? I’ts a little far fetched to assume that everyone starts murdering each other because other occurrences have lead to such behavior. You assume too much and that’s very unscientific. Especially for someone who admires Asimov.
I’m 100% OK with you having your opinion, which, you shouldn’t rub in everyone’s face (like you shouldn’t do with religion either). Also, as other comments have pointed out, your obsessive desire to be right makes you look a little silly.
I would love to see you prove me wrong with actual scientific data. Why? Because science is more important than the futile bickering of men.
Cheers from the Netherlands <3
Well let’s think this trough then shall we.
Let’s first think what was the average life expectancy of our ancestors before the Roman empire and even before the Ice age they had to overcome: just about 30 years.
That gives us about 33 generations between each Starlit night in our scenario (let’s call it “the event” for short) with no written language and the cave paintings weren’t around yet (they were still busy spreading across the world you see.
Let’s say that the first Humans who experienced the Event didn’t kill each other: They would tell about this event to their kids, they would tell their kids and after a few generations of this telephone game it would be discarded as weird legend or a singular event.
Then during the 33rd generation it then happens: Nobody has any idea what is going on.
Maybe the World is ending? Insanity ensues and what little progress they have made is canceled (kinda like in “Nightfall” but in way smaller scale and more often)
But you might say: Why would they immediately jump to conclusion that the world is ending? They could think it is a divine sign of everlasting peace or something and people would rejoice.
Well there is a very simple answer: Unknown is scary.
It is a basic biological reaction to something new and unknown.
Keeps you alive in case it’s a threat. Later one might learn more about it and learn to live with it but that is only if one CAN understand it. If it’s beyond ones comprehension (and many things were for our ancestors) it becomes horrifying and the only options are to either flee or fight.
But how could you fight the night sky?
It is out of reach to all our ancestors weapons.
How could you flee from it?
It is literally everywhere around them.
That would drive anyone insane in which case they would either:
A. Start a killing frienzy
or
B. Hide in caves and die out due to inbreeding.
Now think that pattern repeating every 1000 years:
Every time few survivors had to start from scratch.
There sure as heck wouldn’t be enough time to invent agriculture and therefore there wouldn’t be any civilization.
Mankind would be doomed to roam the Earth in eternal confusion until a comet would wipe the slate clean and this horrible cycle would repeat on some other higher life-form.
In conclusion:
The Roman scenario was the optimistic scenario believe it or not.
In the unlikely case you or anyone else is reading this (although most likely most of you are busy with the newer comic about Gavin’s new baby and how many really checks the comments in his older comics) I hope this answered your counter-points.
Ohh, and I don’t have “obsessive desire to be right”.
I merely am.
Good day to you from near the Arctic circle.
Thanks a lot for sharing such great information with us.
check out this app for batter gaming experience
Please stop feeding the troll everyone. We all love this page and come here for a dose of positivity. Don’t see the point of engaging fools when we are here for a quiet, reflective moment.
I agree: we should just blindly accept what some long forgotten author says about the world and not question it.
I mean he’s somewhat famous in the circles that surround him and therefore he is automatically right.
Ignorance is a bliss after all.
You’re clearly paying a lot of attention to Mr. Emerson.
It’s interesting- Isaac Asimov wrote a short story called Nightfall, which Robert Silverberg later turned into a novel, about a planet where the stars *are* only seen once every 2,000 years because it has 6 suns and they only all set at once every 2,000 years. He based it on that quotation, but thought that people would go mad (on the planet, civilization collapses each time).
On the other hand, that might be less because of the stars and more because of the darkness. If nights were dark and starless except for every thousand years…
I had forgotten that story. The funny thing here is that stars eventually will stop shining in our sky (at least that from other galaxies and when the ones from our galaxy die, and supposing our sun and earth make it trough many millions of years), but forever, not only for one thousand years. No night will have stars.
First thing I thought about when I saw the above mentioned quote!
I’m glad to see I’m not the only one familiar with Nightfall.
“The stars awaken a certain reverence, because though always present, they are inaccessible; but all natural objects make a kindred impression, when the mind is open to their influence.” The rest of the essay bears reading, I think. It made me wonder, what is it in me that if open, could truly appreciate and revere all the beauty around me?
Gav, I’m sorry that one person decided to come here and ruin your day. (What a horrible person!) From the rest of us, thank you for taking the time and energy to make these wonderful strips. Mixing famous writings with your unique art brings joy to me and my students. I rush to your site the moment I see your tweet about a new post! Which is what I did today, and I am the better for it.
I second that with Terry !
It’s hard for us to take a break from the daily grind (even if we’re not in a religious war) to really appreciate how beautiful this world is.
I liked this so much, and found tears in my eyes at the end. We take so many important aspects of the world for granted, not only the natural world but the inherent qualities of people (yes, bad as well as good). If we could treat who and what we meet with that reverence we would have if we so rarely saw the stars, our world would be a better place. Thanks for continually bringing important words into more accessible relevance through your art.
I too enjoy Gav’s artful representation of interesting and inspiring quotes. However, I’m not too keen on his perpetuating the myth that religion is the source of all that divides us. Wars have been fought over land, resources, women, political ideologies, etc. Religion is not a necessary precursor to violence. Indeed, I would argue that when wars are fought in the name of religion there are other interests at play —North Ireland is a perfect example.
I agree that religion is not the source of all that devide us, it shouldn’t be. But the fact that there are many conflict caused by religion is an irony, as religion teaches you good things. Fight for teritory and resouce is very obvious, you will get what you fight for. Winning a religion war gain nothing but hatred. Would you change your believe because one religion win the war? Or you just hate them more? I feel that this topic is very in contex with many recent issue globally.
I must admit, I was a little disappointed with this comic strip. Felt it was done in a careless manner. I know you’ve got a lot more in you Gav! Need better ones 🙂
Love it Gav – is the nod to Charlie’s Brown Christmas in panel 3 intentional?
Wow, I love it!
It’s really great how you buildt it up and then the irony is so strong in the last panel.
Fantastic post I like it. Keep it up
Love your work Gav…sadly…people see it necessary to make rude comments for attention. No matter…you are appreciated and this piece stands out with others. Some just do not know how to keep their negativity to themselves. That is why this world is in the state it is…just rampant hostility. Fortunately, you are a light in that darkness.
Was waiting for lot may days Gav and you haven’t disappointed. Awesome quote and story!
And how timely this quote has come out. Sadly we haven’t evolved and grown above the religious hatred, xenophobia etc. that have plagued our species since time immemorial.
Keep such good stuff coming up buddy!
Don’t wrestle pigs. You get dirty and the pig likes it.
In this era of materialism, logic has clearly superpowered the beauty of language thrown by these poets..thatswhy some people are unable to appreciate the intriguing msg conveyed here.. i read these posts first time nd im so much in love with them.. the idea of combining comic strip with such meaningful quotes.. keep on rocking!
In this era of materialism, logic has clearly superpowered the beauty of language thrown by these poets..thatswhy some people are unable to appreciate the intriguing msg conveyed here.. i read these posts first time nd im so much in love with them.. the idea of combining comic strip with such meaningful quotes.. keep on rocking!
Gav, I’m a huge fan of Emerson and was excited to see that you’d done a comic with one of his quotes. However, I am disappointed by the result – especially the last panel. I get your point, but the blood & guts seems over the top. I like your strips the most when they celebrate the best in humanity. None of us feel optimistic these days, I guess.
A thought provoking strip from a place we normally associate with inspiration and life affirming. Brave interpretation with illustrations that causing a discussion. Well done Gav, sometimes we have to be made to think.
Had not been anticipating the incredibly racist cartoon characters (did you sincerely depict all the Middle Eastern individuals as large nosed and half the East Asian people with horizontal slits for eyes?) and utter lack of female representation (“man” implies “mankind”, referring to all people, not literally only men).
I find calling out large noses as a bad thing the most racist comment here? What’s wrong or demeaning about it? Why so much hate for the proboscis?
A commentary stream such as this clearly illustrates the point of the illustration – and spirit of the quotation! I think 🙂
and beyond the stars: see what is under foot as well, for that is where we dwell.
You feed the troll, the troll wins. That’s why the person being insulted, i.e. our respected comic author, has ignored the belligerent rants aforementioned.
Great quote, sadly to real of a comic drawing
Hear Hear ! 🙂 …well said
I’m curious…are the war and fighting panels at the end the reason why there are only male-seeming figures in this cartoon?
yes because women are much more craftier than outright physical violence. ha!
Personally, I always thought Emerson was never that great a writer. But I think the same for many of the old guards, don’t get me wrong. Still I can appreciate their work for being the best of their time. I can appreciate the value in their views, and I can certainly appreciate Gav’s interpretation on their works.
It’s disappointing, what’s happening in the comments. Some people seems bent on missing everything great and dying angry.
Thank you so much my friend this is amazing and perfect information good job.
Good luck more times.
Great comic i like this story is amazing! Nice my friend, Good luck next story.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH …great, great coments… still laughing!
But seriously…
You ladies and gentleman do understand that TESLACOIL is correct in dismissing this particular author don’t you?
Metaphore asside, it’s a feeble attempt in poor writing, at Ralph Emersons best.
On the other hand, it’s only a cartoon, man!
Very good. you are the winner. Do not forget update new information regularly. thank !
Thanks for this marvellous post.
Excellent Comics I love it !
How do people make it through life without a sister?
Boring comments, excellent comic strip.
provocative comic, provocative commment…
I won’t share this, ever
period
When someone loves you, the way they talk about you is different. You feel safe and comfortable.”
Thanks for magnificent info I was looking for this info for my mission.
They say genes skip generations. Maybe that’s why grandparents find their grandchildren so likeable.
J’adore ce genre d’article !
Good application program to stream online films.
It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles. ~Niccolò Machiavelli
i get what you trying to said for. its still nice.
When someone loves you, the way they talk about you is different. Great post!
It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles. ~Richard Cates
To claim that it covers and MUST be only this and MY definition shows a closed and somewhat narrow mind point does it not?
Thank you Gavin for your “RALPH WALDO EMERSON: Envoys of Beauty” comic post
http://vuelosdelalma.blogspot.com/2013/11/kampung-inggris-pare-kediri.html
Technology feeds on itself. Technology makes more technology possible.Thank you Gavin for your “RALPH WALDO EMERSON
We now stand in the vestibule of a vast new technological age–one that, despite its capacity for human destruction, has an equal capacity to make poverty and human misery obsolete. If our efforts are wisely directed–and if our unremitting efforts for dependable peace begin to attain some success–we can surely become participants in creating an age characterized by justice and rising levels of human well-being.ROZERWOOD
Try not to become a person of success, but rather try to become a person of value. Albert Einstein
Allabout Educations
Do you realize if it weren’t for Edison we’d be watching TV by candlelight? ~Al Boliska
Thanks, You may like to get some excellent apps for pc how to guides to work with a resourcefull way on your computer.
THANK FOR THIS.