Continuing on from the strange origin of Dr. Carlisle, we have him in the New World more than likely prior to the American Revolution.* At this point Carlisle has probably been established as a doctor of medicine in Italy and travelling to the English Colonies would mean that he's probably got a job and estate already set up there. At the very least he has the means to do it himself. It's odd though, "He dreamed of finding others like himself. He was very lonely you see."
He's in Italy among members of his own kind. They have a rift over human blood and he leaves for the undiscovered countries of the Americas so that he can find others like himself. It's quite a leap of reasoning to assume that there will be other vampires in the West. Which works with the story very well because he doesn't. He's alone for two centuries, well not alone, I'm sure with his outrageous perfection he's at least making friends. This is like the Jesus story in the bible, you read all about his infancy to middle childhood (in some versions anyway) and then bam, he's thirty with followers and on his way out. I would be more interested in a story that dealt with these two centuries of Carlisle rather than this tired story of two sociopaths getting together.
Especially from the point of view of a doctor. When exactly did leeches go out of style? Was there some sort of medical establishment backlash against not using leeches? How did Darwin's theory impact the study of medicine? What about the advent of psychology? There is so much that happens in those two centuries from a purely scientific standpoint that it would be a far more interesting story, but no, we skip ahead.
"When the influenza epidemic hit, he was working nights a hospital in Chicago." Suddenly it's 1918 in this flashback and Edward gets turned. Edward thinks it's of note that Carlisle chose him because he was already dying, that somehow that makes Carlisle ethical in his choices. However, that's like asking a person if they want to take an experimental drug to prevent their terminal cancer. A dying person is going to say yes to just about anything that gives them a small fraction of hope for survival. Just look at what we do to keep 90 year old people alive. Fear of death is one of the most primal habits** man possesses. When Carlisle asks Edward (we assume) if he wants to live or die, that isn't a choice. Instinct answers that question. Carlisle isn't morally better because Edward is already on his way out, it actually makes him worse. Ethically you have to be very careful when you experiment with inmates in a prison, because they will agree to most anything just to break the routine. A dying person has more than just monotony to worry about.
Edward being the first of the new brood is instructed by Carlisle to ignore the raging blood lust in his mind and just eat animals. It's a nice sentiment and all but this is like asking a cat to start eating its veggies. So Edward splits. He relates the tale of his murdering for food by trying to portray himself as some sort of avenging angel. He would only stalk and kill criminals. One time he saves a young girl from being murdered by mauling the would-be perpetrator and Bella wonders when the girl sees him, "would she have been grateful, that girl, or more frightened than before?"
The question would be pertinent if this were a well thought out idea. It works in stories like Batman or the Punisher where a murderer/rapist is brutally attacked by a shadowy figure saving a young, usually female, victim. Here, because we have been constantly reminded of how beautiful Edward is it comes down to looks. Would she be grateful if the angelic Adonis Edward had saved her? Bella, we know, thinks yes. The question is abnormal for another reason as well, and that is the manner of saving. When Batman beats someone up or the Punisher shoots someone; those are normal things. They are scary and dangerous, to be sure, and no one wants to be such a close witness to that kind of extreme violence, but they are normal fitting in with the rules of our world. When Edward attacks the murderer it breaks those rules and defies expectations.
It's not the flip of the cloak and the blur of a shadow that saves the her. It's something that has come to feed, an ultra fast human that is drinking the blood of another human being. No matter Edward's victims' intent, it's still a human being and one of the rules of the world is that people don't get eaten by people. In this case, surely the woman must have been in abject terror.
After years of this behavior Edward comes back to Carlisle and now Esme, "They welcomed me back like the prodigal. It was more than I deserved."
"The prodigal," is obviously an allusion to the parable of the prodigal son in the Christian Bible. Summarizing, a father gives his two sons their inheritance early. One stays at the farm and works while the other gets as drunk as a poet on payday, consorts with loose women, blows through his money. Poor he returns home looking to work for his money earning the enmity of his brother. The moral of the story is that it is good that the prodigal son returns and we should rejoice rather than hate him for his ways.
The problem is that most people misunderstand the word "prodigal." It isn't the fact that the son left home that makes him prodigal, it's that he spend all of his money on women, wine, and parties. He could have been prodigal without ever leaving his home...which actually would have been a better story.
It's a misunderstanding that most people fall into because those that speak from the pulpit get it wrong when they speak of the moral of the story. Because oddly enough, the moral of story doesn't change one bit if the person telling the story doesn't know what the word "prodigal" actually means. As said earlier the moral of the story is about welcoming back one who has become lost, perhaps that is where the misunderstanding actually comes in: we tend to think of "lost" primarily in a spatial sense. The prodigal son was lost both in location and in his ways so again, it oddly works.
For Edward's example it works accidentally as well. It all depends on what he meant by "prodigal." Was he referring to himself as being like the person from the story? If the answer to that is "yes" then he is completely wrong. He wasn't prodigal, he was merely bloodthirsty, and Jesus' tale wasn't about a person who left the home to go on a murder spree. Edward wasn't throwing parties and such. Only if his reference was to the welcoming back by Carlisle does the allusion work in the correct sense. Unfortunately the structure of the sentence doesn't support the latter claim.
Not even the religious can get the religious stories right most of the time. I do wonder if Carlisle's father at least had it right.
____________________________
*Since it kind of ceased to be called "the New World" once
**I stress the word "habit" in the vein of American Philosopher John Dewey.
He's in Italy among members of his own kind. They have a rift over human blood and he leaves for the undiscovered countries of the Americas so that he can find others like himself. It's quite a leap of reasoning to assume that there will be other vampires in the West. Which works with the story very well because he doesn't. He's alone for two centuries, well not alone, I'm sure with his outrageous perfection he's at least making friends. This is like the Jesus story in the bible, you read all about his infancy to middle childhood (in some versions anyway) and then bam, he's thirty with followers and on his way out. I would be more interested in a story that dealt with these two centuries of Carlisle rather than this tired story of two sociopaths getting together.
Especially from the point of view of a doctor. When exactly did leeches go out of style? Was there some sort of medical establishment backlash against not using leeches? How did Darwin's theory impact the study of medicine? What about the advent of psychology? There is so much that happens in those two centuries from a purely scientific standpoint that it would be a far more interesting story, but no, we skip ahead.
"When the influenza epidemic hit, he was working nights a hospital in Chicago." Suddenly it's 1918 in this flashback and Edward gets turned. Edward thinks it's of note that Carlisle chose him because he was already dying, that somehow that makes Carlisle ethical in his choices. However, that's like asking a person if they want to take an experimental drug to prevent their terminal cancer. A dying person is going to say yes to just about anything that gives them a small fraction of hope for survival. Just look at what we do to keep 90 year old people alive. Fear of death is one of the most primal habits** man possesses. When Carlisle asks Edward (we assume) if he wants to live or die, that isn't a choice. Instinct answers that question. Carlisle isn't morally better because Edward is already on his way out, it actually makes him worse. Ethically you have to be very careful when you experiment with inmates in a prison, because they will agree to most anything just to break the routine. A dying person has more than just monotony to worry about.
Edward being the first of the new brood is instructed by Carlisle to ignore the raging blood lust in his mind and just eat animals. It's a nice sentiment and all but this is like asking a cat to start eating its veggies. So Edward splits. He relates the tale of his murdering for food by trying to portray himself as some sort of avenging angel. He would only stalk and kill criminals. One time he saves a young girl from being murdered by mauling the would-be perpetrator and Bella wonders when the girl sees him, "would she have been grateful, that girl, or more frightened than before?"
The question would be pertinent if this were a well thought out idea. It works in stories like Batman or the Punisher where a murderer/rapist is brutally attacked by a shadowy figure saving a young, usually female, victim. Here, because we have been constantly reminded of how beautiful Edward is it comes down to looks. Would she be grateful if the angelic Adonis Edward had saved her? Bella, we know, thinks yes. The question is abnormal for another reason as well, and that is the manner of saving. When Batman beats someone up or the Punisher shoots someone; those are normal things. They are scary and dangerous, to be sure, and no one wants to be such a close witness to that kind of extreme violence, but they are normal fitting in with the rules of our world. When Edward attacks the murderer it breaks those rules and defies expectations.
It's not the flip of the cloak and the blur of a shadow that saves the her. It's something that has come to feed, an ultra fast human that is drinking the blood of another human being. No matter Edward's victims' intent, it's still a human being and one of the rules of the world is that people don't get eaten by people. In this case, surely the woman must have been in abject terror.
After years of this behavior Edward comes back to Carlisle and now Esme, "They welcomed me back like the prodigal. It was more than I deserved."
"The prodigal," is obviously an allusion to the parable of the prodigal son in the Christian Bible. Summarizing, a father gives his two sons their inheritance early. One stays at the farm and works while the other gets as drunk as a poet on payday, consorts with loose women, blows through his money. Poor he returns home looking to work for his money earning the enmity of his brother. The moral of the story is that it is good that the prodigal son returns and we should rejoice rather than hate him for his ways.
The problem is that most people misunderstand the word "prodigal." It isn't the fact that the son left home that makes him prodigal, it's that he spend all of his money on women, wine, and parties. He could have been prodigal without ever leaving his home...which actually would have been a better story.
It's a misunderstanding that most people fall into because those that speak from the pulpit get it wrong when they speak of the moral of the story. Because oddly enough, the moral of story doesn't change one bit if the person telling the story doesn't know what the word "prodigal" actually means. As said earlier the moral of the story is about welcoming back one who has become lost, perhaps that is where the misunderstanding actually comes in: we tend to think of "lost" primarily in a spatial sense. The prodigal son was lost both in location and in his ways so again, it oddly works.
For Edward's example it works accidentally as well. It all depends on what he meant by "prodigal." Was he referring to himself as being like the person from the story? If the answer to that is "yes" then he is completely wrong. He wasn't prodigal, he was merely bloodthirsty, and Jesus' tale wasn't about a person who left the home to go on a murder spree. Edward wasn't throwing parties and such. Only if his reference was to the welcoming back by Carlisle does the allusion work in the correct sense. Unfortunately the structure of the sentence doesn't support the latter claim.
Not even the religious can get the religious stories right most of the time. I do wonder if Carlisle's father at least had it right.
____________________________
*Since it kind of ceased to be called "the New World" once
**I stress the word "habit" in the vein of American Philosopher John Dewey.
No comments:
Post a Comment