Immortality | The Naruto World Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia

DescriptionEdit

Immortality on the sub is not true 'Immortality', more like an Endurance buff. All Immortals can be killed, it is up to the player, however, to find the way. Immortality RUs are limited to Jonin and above.

Mechanically, immortality functions in this manner:

When an immortal has taken 8 * End of damage they are disabled and incapable of movement or attacking. They may, however, take actions that are defensive or self-affecting techniques if they have the CP available and the means to do so. It is not until they have taken 10 * End of damage that they truly die. Note that immortals may still be dismembered and/or destroyed through various means to the point of requiring a revival even if 10 * End is not met or exceeded, much as fatal blows can be dealt to mortals without exceeding 8 * End of damage.

Earth Grudge Fear- The user replaces their squishy human organs with tough, durable, tentacle like strands. The user also replaces their hearts with the hearts of fallen ninja, five hearts in total. The user cannot be killed until all five of his hearts are destroyed.

Awoken Oni-The user has cast away his humanity and fully awoken their demonic blood that flows threw him, giving him considerable amount of strength and power. He has learned how to harness the demonic abilities of controlling chakra, creating more destructive jutsu, the ability to regenerate lost limbs, and even the power to never die from mortal wounds regenerating them as if nothing ever happened.

Jashinism - Service to the great Lord Jashin in exchange for eternal life.

Puppet Body - The user seals their essence into the body of a puppet.

Rites of the Sphinx - The user of these techniques has been granted privilege to train and study under the tutelage of the wise and knowledgeable Sphinx Order.

Psionic Transcendence - The user who takes this rank upgrade has learned how to become a Psionic being. A Psionic is a person who has found the ability to transcend one's existance through mental discipline. This means that a Psionic being no longer needs a body to maintain their mental estate; rather, their body is but a mere vessel to keep their mind in.

Immortality RUs can be created as your own OC RU, if you so wish, so go be creative! But please, make it make sense! Also, your Seishin cannot evolve into giving you Immortality, so please, do not ask.

NobuTiburan MomochiShinkir GamiNenshou Natsuin

See the rest here:
Immortality | The Naruto World Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia

Derek Jeter, the final walk-off and baseball immortality – ESPN

Editor's note: This story on Derek Jeter was originally published in the Sept. 26, 2014, issue of ESPN The Magazine. Watch Jeter's "Mr. November" game -- which started on Oct. 31, 2001, but ended just past midnight on Nov. 1 -- on Tuesday at 8 p.m. ET on ESPN and the ESPN App.

START ANYWHERE. Take any moment from the Long Goodbye and it will stand for the whole. Take the other night, for example, a game in Baltimore. The Yankees, still technically in the mix for a postseason berth, the way the middle class still technically exists, sent their captain to the plate to get something started. Eighth inning, score tied -- this was his kind of moment, and everyone knew it, and the crowd stirred, and rose, and aimed their phones, hoping to capture one final spark of magic. The smattering of Yankees fans clapped and broke into that familiar chant, which has become his theme song, his war cry. Two descending musical notes, G-sharp, F, G-sharp, F, a downward sloping cadence that sounds almost like a playground taunt. DER-ek JE-ter! Nyah-nyah, nyah-nyah. But the chant, the excitement, it was all just muscle memory and frantic nostalgia and burned out tropes, because this wasn't the Jeter the crowd knew, the Jeter anyone knew -- this was the 40-year-old Jeter, the Jeter hitting 59 points below his lifetime average, the Jeter trapped in the nightmare of an 0-for-23, crawling on a surgically mended ankle toward retirement. After working the count in his favor, 2-0, he fouled off a pitch. Then looked at another strike, 2-2. Now he stepped out of the box and took a deep breath. He didn't look worried. On the contrary he seemed to be ... talking to himself. Or else humming. Some kind of song. The way his lips were moving, it looked something like, "Tum-tee, TUM-tee, TUM ...?"

"I wasn't humming a song," he says a few days later.

His tone, polite but firm, adds: Idiot.

Well, maybe not a song. ... His handsome face remains impassive, but some twitch of the eyebrow, some tremor of the cheek, says: Sorry, man. I don't hum.

OK, forget the humming. Point is, he just looked so relaxed.

He nods. "I try to relax as much as I can. Playing this game, I'm not afraid to fail. I don't like it, and after I do it I don't want to talk about it, but I'm not afraid of it, so every time I'm in a situation I try to think about times I've been successful and I try to relax."

He did not look relaxed after he stepped back into the box and swung through the next pitch. Strike 3. And he looked anything but relaxed as he walked back to the dugout. His face -- ovoid, smooth, immensely expressive while almost always wholly unrevealing -- showed real concern. There was sadness in the pale limeade eyes, and something more than sadness. Maybe grief?

Of course, if you were ever to bring it up to him, even if you showed him video evidence, he'd only tell you that you're wrong.

And you very well might be.

THE STORY OF every athlete, at heart, is the story of a betrayal. Sometimes, through lack of focus, or lack of commitment, or some moral lapse, the athlete betrays his gifts, or his team, or his game. More often it happens this way: The athlete is betrayed by his body. Our time is short, our playtime shorter. The weak flesh oppresses the willing spirit. That bleak scene in Act 3 of "The Pride of the Yankees," when Gary Cooper as Lou Gehrig opens and closes his trembling fist, staring in horror at its ebbing strength -- that's the norm. One day the body, which has always said yes, says not just no but hell no. Gehrig had a disease, yes, but every athlete has a disease, as does every human being. Time is the disease, and all the ice bucket challenges in the world won't cure it.

Derek Jeter knows this. He might have known it from the start, from the day he became the sixth pick in the first round of the 1992 draft, and yet you always felt he didn't know, not really, which was part of the joy of watching him play. His durable, willful boyishness was a form of rebellion, an F-you to the hourglass. Careful of his gifts, respectful of his game, devoted to his team, possessed of deep moral rectitude -- or else obsessive discretion and top-notch security people -- Jeter carried himself, presented himself, as if there would be some quid pro quo, as if that svelte body, which looks as if it could still fit easily into his rookie uni, might grant him time off for all the good behavior.

He sometimes said as much. Gene Michael, the shrewd executive who helped build Jeter's first championship clubs, once asked Jeter if there wasn't something else he wanted to do with his life. Nope, Jeter said: All I want to do is play baseball. With Michael, with close friends, Jeter spoke openly, blithely, of his intention -- not hope, intention -- to play into his 40s.

2 Related

His blitheness was understandable. Jeter's career has been ridiculously long, misleadingly long, four times longer than the average baseball player's. He made his major league debut in the previous century, three wars ago, before Jay Z released his first album, before there was an Internet per se -- so he can be forgiven if he came to regard himself as baseball's Benjamin Button, as some kind of Bronx Ponce de Leon. But when his youth fountain spluttered last year, then went bone-dry this year around the anniversary of Thurman Munson's death, it was a difficult thing to see, and doubly difficult to see him seeing it. After clubbing into yet another double play, he occasionally looked like Cooper qua Gehrig glaring at that useless fist. (How odd that this summer, of all summers, while the 11th captain in the 112-year history of the Yankees was coming to grips with his end, everyone was getting doused to "raise awareness" of the wasting malady that killed Captain Number Five.)

Maybe it's wrong to speak so much of death when considering the end of a baseball career. But it is a death, a little death, a petite mort, as the French say, though not the way they mean it, god knows. Even as we celebrate and commemorate Jeter, we understand and grieve what's happening to him. Jeter the businessman, the public figure, is a relatively young man with a bright future who plans to go into book publishing. (Talk about a throwback.) But Jeter the ballplayer is on life support. After his final game at Fenway Park we'll never see him again. From now until the sun burns out, like that little light above the oven that hasn't worked since you moved in and you can't find a replacement bulb anywhere -- never. RIP, Captain. Requiscat in pace, amen.

To be honest, the Yankees invite this kind of death talk. The Yankees, more than the Egyptians of the Middle Kingdom, fetishize death and dynasties and exalt the afterlife in order to gild and contextualize the flying moment. The Yankees let a dead man announce Jeter every time he steps to the plate. They play a recording of their in-house Thurston Howell, the eternally patrician Bob Sheppard (Oct. 20, 1910-July 11, 2010), who sounds as if he's ordering a gin and tonic down at the club. Numbah Two-ah ... Derek JE-tah. The Yankees recite the same obsessive necrology -- Ruth Gehrig DiMaggio Mantle Maris -- like a graveside Mass whenever another boy king passes over into eternity. Call it "tradition," or "pride," but at times, when they hold another Old-Timers' Day or add another mummy to their Giza Plateau beyond center field, it can feel as ghoulish as a picnic with Marilyn Manson at Forest Lawn.

Sometimes the Yankees are so eager to celebrate the deceased, they embalm the living. Note the memorial patches on the players' sleeves and caps this season, in honor of Jeter. You have to remind yourself at times that Jeter is still ... with us.

Though not for long.

Even if the Yankees weren't a death cult, even if the Yankees didn't have a past, like the Rockies, or pretended they didn't have a past, like the Brewers, Jeter's Long Goodbye would still be a painful reminder of mortality, which baseball is supposed to make us forget. And his uncharacteristically average performance this season, his diminished physical condition, is a painful reminder that our talents, whatever they may be, though they form a key part of our personal identity, are on loan to us, a short-term lease, and when the Repo Man comes, he won't be swayed by our begging, Wait, please, wait, just a little more time. Heedless, he'll hoist them onto his flatbed and drive off. The way Jeter's baseball life is petering out, rather than Jetering out, the way it's ending not with a bang but an oh-fer, the way his team is missing the playoffs for just the third time in his career -- it's all an unwelcome reminder that everything falls apart, that the center cannot hold, that, as James Baldwin said, none of us is "outwitting oblivion," in a summer when we didn't need reminding. A summer of Ebola, Ferguson, ISIS, etc.

And just to make matters worse, the loss of Jeter comes at a time when we're running dangerously low on high-character guys and we're all stocked up on the low -- Ray Rice, Greg Hardy, Jameis Winston, Roger Goodell. (Are you there, God, it's me, America: Why are you making Derek Jeter retire before Roger Goodell?)

Of course, the Long Goodbye was at times joyful. The eight-month fade to black, or navy blue, has occasionally prompted a heart-swelling giddiness, and it inspired two TV spots (Nike, Gatorade) that will be first-ballot entries into the Gooseflesh Hall of Fame. But mostly it's been a downer. Again and again you could hear people, around the ballparks, on the streets, on social media, saying the same things.

Damn, can't believe he's retiring ...

Wow, just realized Number 2 ain't gonna be here no more ... SMH.

The problem is, along with his many other virtues, Jeter has been so companionable. He's always been so reassuringly there. On summer nights, and autumn nights, maybe especially autumn nights, it was a pleasure to turn on the TV and know he'd be at short, tugging the bill of his cap, doing that dancery thing he did every pitch, that half-step toward the hole or the plate just as the pitcher went into his windup. If you walked into any bar, from Midtown to Montauk, between, say, 7 p.m. and 11, Jeter would be above the bartender's head, stepping lithely into the batter's box, waggling his helmet, that dainty way he does, with the pointer finger in the ear hole, then holding his right palm to the ump, begging, Wait, please, wait, just a little more time. For 20 years, he's been more than a great player, he's been great company, and so he'll be missed, not like a limb, not like a friend -- but something like. And no one can truly gauge how much he'll be missed until he's gone, just as we didn't know how much we'd miss other things until they were gone, like peace, and privacy.

That's why this Long Goodbye is so damn sad.

PEOPLE LIKE TO say it isn't sad. People lie. People just don't want to admit it's sad, because that might sound disrespectful, and the theme, the meme, the leitmotif of the Long Goodbye is "Re2pect." But even one of Jeter's oldest friends says that Jeter, secretly, is crushed, that the last at-bat "is going to crush him."

Sometimes people allow that the Long Goodbye has been "bittersweet," an even more execrable lie. Everything these days gets tagged with that feeble cop-out, that consummate Orwellian doublespeak. We've become so linguistically craven, so emotionally addled, we fear making clean, hard distinctions between even basic binaries like happy and sad, so we call complex rites of passage -- breaking up, moving out, getting kicked off the island -- bittersweet, a word without conviction, a word without soul. Let the record show that, notwithstanding those signs at Yankee Stadium (Nothing is sweeter than Derek Jeter!), the Long Goodbye was not sweet. It was bitter. And now it's sad. Period.

You can just hear them, the haters, the anti-Jeterites, haw-hawing and pooh-poohing such talk as rank sentimentality. All this piety, they say, all this hoopla and blather, the legend thing, the icon thing, it's all just a function of Jeter playing in New York. Jeter is good, they say, not great, and the Long Goodbye has been too long by half, and it's frequently veered into kitsch.

Some days it's hard to argue. Like when you sit in Yankee Stadium and on the scoreboard comes a heartfelt farewell from those baseball giants ... Brian Williams and Kenny Chesney? Or when you read that a New Jersey farmer has shaved Jeter's face into his cornfield. (Bob VonThun, the farmer in question, says he won't be watching the last at-bat. He'll be too busy giving tours of Jeter's face.) Or when someone posts a video on YouTube of Jeter's career highlights re-enacted by OYO figures. Or when a Manhattan "gentlemen's club" offers free admission with every Jeter jersey. Somewhere between the Space Shuttle astronauts tipping their caps to Jeter in zero gravity and Gene Simmons making bromantic overtures to Jeter in a video that's just plain hard to watch ("You're a powerful and attractive man!"), there was a predictable outbreak of Jeter Fatigue, and by Labor Day it had become a pandemic. Jeter himself looked like Patient Zero. No one sounded more sick of talking about Derek Jeter than Derek Jeter. Then again, what else is new?

It doesn't help that his last at-bat in Boston represents the fourth, no, fifth goodbye of the Long Goodbye. There was the emotional retirement news conference, Feb. 19. Then the emotional Final All-Star Game, July 15. Then the hyperemotional Derek Jeter Day at the Stadium, Sept. 7. (White folding chairs on the infield, a Periclean eulogy, Jeter's grandmother being walked out by the manager -- it felt like four funerals and a wedding, plus a quinceaera.) Then the devastatingly emotional final home game, Sept. 25, when he, you know.

Not to mention the mini goodbyes at every American League ballpark, plus a few in the National. Every other week, in Houston or Seattle, Baltimore or St. Louis, etc., another team presented Jeter with another giant cardboard check for his Turn 2 Foundation and another gift -- bronze bat, cowboy boots, cuff links, crabs, stadium seats, paddleboard, kayak -- all of which will soon fill an air-conditioned storage locker somewhere in the Tampa-St. Petersburg area. (Jeter plans to spend his golden years down there; he's built a 31,000-square-foot mansion that someone brilliantly dubbed St. Jetersburg.)

The 10-part Michael Jordan documentary "The Last Dance" is here.

Latest updates, full schedule Lowe: The Bulls' toughest Game 7 MacMullan: The Michael Jordan I knew Big moments from Episodes 7 and 8

Finally, the appreciations. Oh lord, the appreciations. Writers, faced with a subject so vast, so done to death, a subject that felt at times like Lincoln, plus Shakespeare, with a side of Princess Di, have been gasping and stammering all summer, like Rain Man 15 minutes before Wapner, and a few have simply gone mad. Feel sad for the Jeter fans, but take pity on the writers. In desperation, some have chosen the New York journalist's version of seppuku, i.e., calling Jeter a "fraud," and "selfish," knocking him for refusing to bench himself when slumping. (They did the same to Gehrig.) A few have hauled out the moth-eaten Jeter j'accuse, "overrated." For the most part, however, they've just thrown in the sponge, warmed up the boilerplate platitudes, because ... Jeter. How else do you write an appreciation of a man almost everyone already appreciates, a man who won't let you appreciate him, won't tell you squat even if you get him to sit still for a 25-minute interview, and will somehow make you respect him for telling you squat? More, how do you sound smart doing it when science shows that human beings have a strong "negativity bias." Study after study proves that we favor someone who says negative things over someone positive, that we rate the negative person's IQ higher.

But have fun trying to be negative -- genuinely, accurately negative -- about Derek Sanderson Jeter. And so the writers covering the Long Goodbye have exhibited a kind of aphasia. Fans, when speechless in the face of Jeter, can at least fall back on their chant. DER-ek JE-ter. Writers simply babble the greatest hits.

October 2001. Division Series against the Athletics. Appearing from nowhere, 50 feet out of position, Jeter grabs an errant cutoff and laterals to Jorge Posada, catching the forever-not-sliding Jeremy Giambi, killing a rally and saving the series, and the season.

November 2001. Game 4 of the World Series. Jeter belts a 10th-inning homer off feckless and fragile Diamondbacks closer Byung-Hyun Kim, who at this moment is somewhere having a stiff drink and muttering the lineup of the 2001 Yankees. Jeter's homer ties the series at 2 and gives New Yorkers, reeling from 9/11, something to cheer. Also, because the at-bat begins in October and ends in November, a first in world history, it earns Jeter the best of his several sobriquets -- Mr. November.

July 2004. A critical regular-season game against the Red Sox. Jeter chases a fly ball up the line, dives into the stands like Michael Phelps starting the 100-meter butterfly, then disappears, then emerges with bloodied chin and bruised eye and woozy expression -- and the ball.

September 2008. The impromptu speech to close out the old Yankee Stadium. Jeter eloquently placates the evicted ghosts and the 50,000 dislocated fans, none of whom can understand the need for a new Stadium, because there was no need.

This is the form all writerly praise of Jeter must take -- anecdotal, strictly external. It doesn't touch the man's core, and we don't much care. Jeter isn't loved for what he's said as much as for what he's done, and above all for what he's not done. Two decades without scandal? It's a feat as impossible, as improbable, as DiMaggio's 56 games. And it wasn't accomplished by some misanthropic agoraphobe who never left his crib in Trump Tower. Jeter likes a good time. He likes people. He likes women. A career bachelor, with exquisite taste, he's put together a girlfriend rsum that's astonishingly diverse, and there's nary a shy librarian among them. Models, singers, actresses, party monsters -- Jeter has dated the kinds of women who are typically, fairly or unfairly, known for drama, and none has ever said a bad word about him in print.

Now consider a partial list of sins that have been connected to Jeter's teammates in the past two decades. Domestic abuse, check kiting, banned substances, drunken driving, assaulting a bartender, assaulting a security guard, perjury, probation violation, child sex abuse.

And that's a partial list. Just from his own locker room. Never mind the rest of the league.

The most salacious Jeter headlines in the morning tabs? The Jeffrey Maier interference, which unfairly gave Jeter a home run in the 1996 playoffs. The "revelation," from an unnamed source, that Jeter gives swag bags to women who overnight at his apartment. The contentious contract negotiations with the Yankees in 2010, after which Jeter proclaimed: "I'd be lying if I said I wasn't angry."

Twenty years, that's it.

In many ways, Jeter recalls that famous equation by economist Herbert Simon: "A wealth of information creates a poverty of attention." With Jeter there's a wealth of information, a surfeit of attention, but a poverty of authentic knowledge. All that data -- anecdotes, highlights, numbers, photos, stats, quotes -- goes into the Media Trash Compactor and comes out as a blank slab, a creamy white wall that makes fans feel like Banksy on ephedrine. Onto Jeter the fan can paint or project whatever he wants, including things for which there's scant evidence. In our age of Total Noise, and White Noise, Jeter's grace and stoicism provide a healing, reparative quiet. Which we can then fill up with all our stuff.

THE MOST FAMILIAR emblem of the Yankees, more than the top hat on the bat, is that famous white facade around the vertiginous upper tier of the Stadium. (Any architect worth his T square will tell you it's not actually a facade but a frieze, but never mind, we're after metaphors, not accuracy.) The public Jeter, the Jeter of five rings and constant effort and consistent respectfulness, the Jeter hitting .309 lifetime (.308 in the postseason), is a facade. Maybe not a deliberate facade, or consciously deliberate, but a public face nonetheless, a polished front he wears as smartly as his cap. The facade doesn't simply hide or overshadow the inner Jeter, the pin-striped ego and the road-gray id, it renders them moot. We know nothing of Jeter's dark side, his demons and insecurities, whom he's wronged, whom he's slighted, who has wronged or slighted him, not merely because he doesn't want us to know but because at this point we don't want to know. As Elias Canetti wrote: "Don't tell me who you are. I want to worship you."

At some point Jeter realized this, figured it all out, whereas his fellow superstars never seem to. Count how many tweets we've received from LeBron James since The Decision. Then consider that Jeter, in five times that span, has never tweeted, never Instagrammed, and his few Facebook postings mainly concern children aided by his foundation. He did write a quasi memoir in 2000, though it seems aimed at tweens, and it contains zero revelations, and it's ghostwritten in a golly gee willikers tone that makes the Boy Scout Handbook sound like Charles Bukowski. Jeter gets knocked for being guarded, but he's not guarded, he's just not open. If you went to the store and it wasn't open, you'd move on without a thought. If you found a guard standing outside, you'd be suspicious. There's a difference.

So, for argument's sake, let's concede that Jeter is a cypher, and let's grant that the Long Goodbye has been overlong -- even so, good luck not watching the last at-bat. Good luck, if you're anywhere near a TV, looking away when they play and replay and re-replay Jeter making that last slow walk to the plate and the Fenway crowd roaring and showing him what can only be called ... love. Good luck not feeling sad at the sight and sound of such love, not thinking that things were better, the world righter, when Jeter was reviled in New England, when the jamokes outside Fenway were hawking T-shirts that read "Brokeback Jeter" and having trouble keeping XXLs in stock. If you're a Jeter fan, your heart will break at that surreal scene, but even if you're a Cubs fan, or a Mariners fan, prepare yourself for some myocardial dysfunction. If you're a baseball fan of any kind, Jeter's last at-bat will be a workout for the deep nodes in your brain that equate baseball with manhood and fatherhood and America and the quintessence of life; it will be like watching "Field of Dreams" and "The Natural," while wearing Ty Cobb's old jock, while munching a box of Cracker Jack hand-roasted by Abner Doubleday's mom and picking the kernels out of your teeth with a Mickey Mantle rookie card.

Still, still, leave baseball out of it. If you care anything about the culture, this is important, riveting theater. Years will pass, perhaps a generation or two, before we witness someone with this much street cred, and stat cred, and history and equity built up with such a diverse cross section of the population. America is polarized? Throughout the Long Goodbye, Jeter has received standing ovations in the Deep South, the Mid-Atlantic, the Pacific Northwest, the Great Plains. In Baltimore, a 50-something woman, 24 hours after receiving a dire diagnosis from her doctor, waited in her wheelchair outside the visitors' exit, hoping to get Jeter's autograph, because Jeter is her inspiration -- her medicine. "He never gave up," she said simply. In Tampa, a snow-haired granny draped herself over the top of the visitors' dugout, virtually stopping the game until Jeter posed for a selfie.

Throw in the anomaly of Jeter's 20 years with one organization, plus his 3,463 hits, more than all but five men in history, plus his 200 postseason hits, more than anyone ever, and this last at-bat comes into razor-sharp ultra-HD. Even if you're in a medically induced coma, wake up. This is fricking big.

ALEXES BERNIER will be watching. The 17-year-old captain of the City Divas, a girls fast-pitch softball team in the Bronx, plays shortstop, wears No. 2 and strives in all things to be like her hero. So total is her adulation of Jeter, so complete is her mimicry of his mannerisms, friends and family don't call her Alexes anymore. They just call her Cap'n.

Bernier has never known a day on this planet when Jeter wasn't the Yankees' starting shortstop, when his picture didn't paper her bedroom walls, when she didn't spend hours practicing his stance before a mirror -- butt out, toes in, bat high above her head, twirling like a straw in a dust devil. Jeter's departure posits a new kind of void for Bernier, an initiation into the adult Unknown, so she wanted, needed, to join the Long Goodbye, to bid Jeter farewell in person. During one of the last homestands -- in fact, the first day of her senior year -- Bernier and a group of teammates finagled their way onto the field before the game.

There are usually 50 or so kids on the field an hour or two before the first pitch. The Yankees keep them in a corral, cordoned off by fat navy blue straps, and their anguish can be a gruesome sight. Imagine a petting zoo where the kids aren't allowed to pet anything. Kept far away from the foci of their fascination, the kids make oohing and aahing noises and do not blink. The four long rows of Bernier's lashes might not have touched once while Jeter took his cuts in the batting cage, and only when he was done, only when he was busy talking to teammates, was she able to divert her attention long enough to explain, or rather confess, that her nature isn't really like Jeter's. She wishes it were. Oh, Mister, how she wishes. Instead she tends to get nervous at Big Moments. Her coaches even tease her about it. They call her Derek Jitters. "She'll be a hot mess," says her mother, Suheil Fontanez, "and not be able to breathe." But then she'll think of Jete and find her center. "He's really changed her life."

In fact, Jeter may ultimately be the reason Bernier gets to go to college. Her best hope of getting into a good school, a Division I school, and receiving desperately needed financial aid, may be softball, so patterning herself after the Captain may yield benefits for years to come.

Finally, on his way to the dugout, Jeter stopped and signed every ball and scrap of paper thrust toward him by the kids. Bernier gently held her ticket aloft. Only once before had she gotten this close to Jeter, when she was 10, and she'd been so dumbstruck she couldn't form words. Couldn't move. She just stood there and Jeter stood there and then she burst into tears and he moved on. This time she held it together, got his signature, then fell backward into her girlfriends as if they were a mosh pit. It seemed the EMTs might need to be called. Days later, when the ticket was in its rightful place, at the foot of her bed, like the golden chalice on an altar, she told her mother, "That was the best day of my life." Yes. Alexes will be watching.

As will Gay Talese. Forty-eight years ago the legendary journalist and author wrote a probing, lyric, classic portrait of Joe DiMaggio, who may be the closest spiritual link to Jeter in the Yankees pantheon. Both men are praised for their elegance, and both are often called "aloof." (Jeter, who once met DiMaggio but was too intimidated to speak to him, la Bernier, makes a habit before every home game of touching a sign painted with a DiMaggio quote: "I want to thank the Good Lord for making me a Yankee.") Two years ago, while reporting a profile of Yankees manager Joe Girardi, Talese interviewed Jeter, sat with him in the dugout and observed the same distance, the same distrust he'd once observed in the Yankee Clipper. "It was like there was a glass case around him. He was like in a museum and there's a glass case and someone is saying, 'Keep your distance.'"

If Jeter harbors a deep distrust of sports writers, Talese says, who could blame him? "The most untrustworthy people in journalism are sports writers! I wouldn't trust a sports writer -- ever. You know what wrecks they are. Terrible! Exploitive!"

You can see that attitude best when you see Jeter in the locker room, his sanctum, which you can tell, from his body language, from his vibe, he's not thrilled to share with these lumpy, notebook-toting buffoons in their acid-washed jeans and bad shoes. When you see the writers standing in a pack near Jeter, but not too near, pretending they're not watching him, constantly cutting sidelong glances in his direction, like scavenger birds watching a feeding lion on the savanna, you get some idea of his life. Occasionally they drift over, ask for a minute, and almost always Jeter tells them, with unfailing politeness, 'Not right now, I can't, sorry, another time.' Then you see him turn to his locker, turn his back to them, drop his pants, and his shorts, and you have to laugh, because, sure, it's a locker room, the man has to get dressed, but no one else is doing this at the moment, and there does seem to be something pointed, something meaningful, something unmistakably clear about the one and only part of Jeter that he's willing to reveal to sports writers.

Talese believes the two keys to Jeter -- to his nature, his reserve, his success, everything -- are his parents, Charles and Dorothy. They will probably be watching the last at-bat from a suite at Fenway, though it's no sure thing. When Jeter made his official big league debut as the declared starting shortstop of the Yankees, in Cleveland, in April 1996, only his mother was on hand. His father was back home in Kalamazoo, Michigan, watching Jeter's only sibling, younger sister Sharlee, play softball. It was typical of the Jeters' parenting style, people say. Never putting one child above the other, never losing sight of what really matters.

Both Jeter's mother and father were sergeants in the U.S. Army. (They met while stationed in Frankfurt.) Though they come from vastly different backgrounds -- Dad, African-American, grew up in Montgomery, Alabama; Mom, Irish Catholic, grew up in suburban Jersey -- they apparently saw eye-to-eye on the art of child-rearing. The Jeter household was run like a barracks, with many rules, strictly enforced. In fact, when Jeter was in grade school his parents made him sign a contract, pledging to do his chores and homework, to obey a strict curfew, to show respect to elders and peers and strive to be an all-around exemplary citizen.

At the same time Jeter was inking a long-term deal with his parents, he was making a lifelong pact with himself. He vowed to be a ballplayer. More, to be a Yankee. To this day he's never said why. Maybe it was because he was born (June 26, 1974) just miles from the Stadium. Maybe it was because he spent summers with his grandparents in Jersey and his grandmother was a diehard fan. Maybe it was destiny. Whatever the reason, as a boy Jeter wore Yankees boxer shorts to bed, wore Yankees pinstripes around the house, nailed a Yankees uniform to his wall, told teachers, friends, anyone who would listen, that he hoped -- no, intended -- to play shortstop for the Bombers one day. Destiny, or audacity, it seems to have been in his blood.

Speaking of his blood. Henry Louis Gates Jr. will likely be watching the last at-bat. The eminent Harvard professor recently oversaw a chemical analysis of Jeter's DNA, plus an extensive pruning of the Jeter family tree, as part of a segment on the PBS show "Finding Your Roots." Gates says Jeter "identifies as an African-American," but when they first met for the show Jeter knew very little of his racial makeup or family history. Like most Jeter fans, Jeter wanted to know more.

Gates obliged. He discovered that Jeter, on his father's side, descends from Green Jeter, an Alabama slave, born May 1844. Upon being set free after the Civil War, Gates says, Green "thrived," became a minister, founded his own church. "We wanted to find out who owned him," Gates says, "and the most incredible thing, we found the will of an Alabama slave owner, James W. Jeter, a white man who died in 1861." The will mentioned Green by name, and also his mother, Charity. "It's very rare to find a former slave mentioned in an owner's will," Gates says. Then another telling clue popped up: The 1870 census lists Green as "mulatto." "So if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck ..." Gates says. In the end, Jeter's DNA analysis removed all doubt. "James W. Jeter was Green's father," Gates says.

Thus Jeter descends not just from slaves but slave owners, a revelation that kicked open the door to other discoveries, including the identity of a distant Jeter who fought in the Revolutionary War. Further, a grandfather on Jeter's mother's side immigrated to America from Germany in the 1860s and opened a tavern where the Holland Tunnel now stands. In other words, for at least 150 years, New Yorkers have enjoyed guzzling beer while watching a Jeter kin.

It's an irresistible temptation to say that some elemental quality in Jeter's genes impelled him to become a New Yorker, a New York Yankee, a New York hero, a transcendent figure who floats above or synthesizes or denies America's racial anxieties. No one ever calls him the second black captain of the New York Yankees, the first lone black captain. (Willie Randolph was co-captain.) But he is. If race seems to have played little role in his rise, it's an illusion. For example, shortly after being drafted, after getting his first big bonus check, Jeter bought himself a flashy red Mitsubishi, which quickly attracted the attention of Kalamazoo's yahoos. One day a group of thumb heads drove by and shouted: "Take that car back to your daddy, you n-----!"

It's a memory that probably doesn't recur during the Long Goodbye. Or else recurs constantly. No one knows, and the last person who's likely to say is Jeter.

CHAD MOTTOLA will be watching the last at-bat.

In the 1992 baseball draft, Mottola, a power-hitting outfielder from Fort Lauderdale, was picked fifth by Cincinnati, even though the Reds' Michigan scout begged the front office: Take Jeter. Mottola went on to have a dazzlingly short career, appearing in only 59 games, roughly 2,700 fewer than Jeter. Now the minor league hitting coordinator for Tampa Bay, Mottola says he's endured 20 years of ribbing, not always good-natured. But last year, when he was with Toronto, he and Jeter had a moment. They shook hands, shared a laugh about how their fates are entwined. Mottola then sent two baseballs into the Yankees' clubhouse, with a modest request. He wanted Jeter to sign them for his kids, 9 and 6. "I wanted him to write: Your dad was supposed to be better than me -- haha."

Somehow the baseballs got lost. Mottola never got them back. Oh well, he says. Another time.

The man who chose Mottola over Jeter will also be watching. "I probably will," says Julian Mock, former scouting director of the Reds.

Mock vividly recalls the scout telling him that Jeter was the real deal, and Mock had no reason to doubt the scout. "But we already had a Hall of Famer at short -- Barry Larkin!" So Mock chose Mottola and let Jeter slip to the shocked and jubilant Yankees. Now retired and living in Georgia, Mock doesn't go back, late at night, when he can't sleep, and replay his decision. Really. He doesn't. "I'm glad I didn't get him," he says. "The way our system was? When he made all those errors the first two years in the minor leagues -- he'd have been gone."

It's true. When Jeter first joined the Rookie League Gulf Coast Yankees, he was so error-prone that some within the organization started to have buyer's remorse. Some talked about moving him to center field, and Jeter heard them talking. He panicked. He sank into a depression.

It was the darkest time of his life. Eighteen, homesick, having his first real taste of failure, he wept every night for months. Then things got worse. The following year, though his hitting improved, he committed 56 errors, a league record. There was growing concern within the Yankees, and some said openly that Jeter might be a bust, and so the team sent out an urgent distress call to Brian Butterfield, a well-respected fielding guru. Come fix this kid.

Butterfield hustled to Tampa and put Jeter through an intensive boot camp, 35 straight days of breaking him down, teaching him how to field a grounder.

What was Jeter doing wrong?

"You name it," Butterfield says, laughing. "His feet didn't have a purpose. His glove didn't have a purpose." While Butterfield was installing purpose in Jeter's extremities, he noticed that the rest of Jeter was wholly purpose-driven. No matter how many grounders Jeter muffed, he went after the next one with confidence and determination. "He didn't get down on himself," Butterfield says. "He was the antithesis of me."

Now a coach for Boston, Butterfield will have no choice but to watch Jeter's last at-bat. He'll be a ground ball away. And he expects the moment to be unbearably poignant. He predicts tears. "He has impacted my life far more than I ever could've done for him," Butterfield says.

ONE JETER FAN who won't be watching is R.D. Long, who played with Jeter in Tampa and Greensboro. Unlike Jeter, Long was no bonus baby. Drafted in the 38th round, he managed to eke out a few years in pro ball before giving up, right around the time Jeter was achieving superstardom.

Long recalls the exact moment he realized that his friend, with whom he'd shared bad motel rooms and greasy road food, had become a god. The Yankees were in Toronto, and Long was in nearby Rochester, and he swung by the ballpark to say hello. Standing shyly near the players' exit, near the buses, Long suddenly saw them all come out. Pettitte, Clemens, Rivera, Posada, a row of giants, and then Jeter, who seemed to be leading them from behind, "with this jacket-coat that looked like the wind; a fan was blowing, his coat is flying behind him, like he's some kind of superhero. It seemed so surreal that it was like -- it looked slow motion, like the smoke with the wind blowing Michael Jackson's shirt in that video? Like that.

"This was the boy king in the making, right in front of me. It happened that quickly."

So why won't Long be watching? "Certain things happened," he says. "The A-Rod scenario ... "

Long soured on the Yankees, he says, when the team acquired Rodriguez in a 2004 trade. Rodriguez was "all the talk -- while idly by you're ignoring one of the greatest ever -- Jete."

And yet ... Alex Rodriguez will be watching.

From his office in Miami, where he's serving a one-year banishment from baseball, Rodriguez says he's watched nearly every game of Jeter's Long Goodbye, and he'll surely be watching the last at-bat, and probably feeling nostalgic about the early days of their friendship. He often finds himself thinking of those halcyon days when he and Jeter were two teenagers loaded with talent, the world at their cleats. In particular he thinks of the night they first met. Rodriguez was a high school senior, trying to decide between attending the University of Miami and going pro, and he sought advice from Jeter, who'd just chosen the Yankees over the University of Michigan. Through Jeter's agent, they arranged to meet at a Miami-Michigan baseball game, and Jeter spent the entire game counseling Rodriguez. "We sat there for nine innings, talking shop," Rodriguez says. "I'm very inquisitive, I asked everything under the moon -- and what he told me that day, that night, had a huge influence."

Another glowing memory comes right behind that one, a heady night not long after Rodriguez and Jeter had both broken into the majors. MTV flew them both, first-class, to Los Angeles, to film a TV show called "Rock N' Jock."

Rodriguez says they were beyond thrilled about flying first-class, and about the chance to see Hollywood. After filming ended, they went out on the town, and in the early-morning hours, in a cab back to their hotel, they talked unguardedly about the future. Both agreed that if they could just manage to stay in the game for a few years, long enough to earn "one million dollars," that would be unthinkable. More than anyone could dare hope for.

When the cab pulled up to the hotel they discovered that they didn't have enough to pay the fare. They pooled their crumpled bills and coins and came up with $17, Rodriguez recalls, which they handed, with profuse apologies, to the driver. Rodriguez laughs at the memory: their big dreams, their innocence.

Rodriguez and Jeter have had an up-and-down relationship through the years, he concedes. Friends, enemies, frenemies -- but right now he says they're in a good place. He's beyond proud of his friend, he says, filled with unrestrained admiration. "Derek's been a leader from day one. He's been the head of his class in every way, both on the field and in terms of character. ... That's hard to do. Being undefeated for 20 years? In New York City? That's remarkable."

Via satellite, Rodriguez soaked up every bit of Derek Jeter Day, including Jeter's moving, funny, "presidential" news conference afterward. "When you realize, an hour before the game, 50,000 people are in their seats, ready to go, excited, energetic. When you see Michael Jordan and Cal Ripken, two of the biggest icons of my lifetime -- I thought it was a great day. I'm sorry I wasn't there."

Rodriguez thought about texting Jeter that day. But he held off, he says, because he didn't want to be a distraction. "I've made it a point to stay in the penalty box."

Some days later, he says: "I opted to reach out to Derek in a private moment."

ABOVE ALL, Derek Jeter will not be watching the last at-bat of Derek Jeter. He won't step outside himself, he won't be thinking about any of this -- the cosmic importance, the social relevance, the emotions, the history. Nothing.

Sitting in a bare office in the bowels of Tropicana Field, wearing jeans, a gray T-shirt and a red beaded necklace, Jeter says softly that he'll reflect on the moment, briefly, before it comes, maybe, maybe. But in the moment, while it's actually happening? No. "Probably be thinking, 'Man, I need to get a hit right here.' But I think that every time."

Every game, before, during, after, he thinks the same things, does the same things, so he's not about to change now, he says, just because it's the end. He'll approach the 11,000-somethingth at-bat just like the first. "I'm a creature of habit," he says. "My biggest fear in life, in anything, is being unprepared. It throws me off. So I feel as though, when I do my routine, I'm prepared to play. When I don't, it throws me off."

That's why, for instance, he's used the same model of bat since he was 18. It's the bat that comes closest in shape to the aluminum bat he used in high school. "I've never changed," he says, beaming with pride. "I've used one bat my entire career -- P72. I'm the only person I know that's never changed. I've never had another at-bat with another one."

Not even in batting practice? Not even when he's slumping? "Its not the bat," he says, laughing. "Some people blame the bat ... ?"

He leaves open the possibility that he'll be nervous for the last at-bat. "Everybody gets nervous," he says. "It's just how you hide it. How you deal with it." But most likely he'll sleep like a baby. He only has trouble sleeping "when we have a day game after a night game."

If others are sad about the last at-bat, or about what comes after, he shows no signs of sharing their sadness. He sounds like someone looking forward to the next chapter, someone at peace with the timing of his decision. "I think you can play as long as you want, as long as you can work hard at it. I got to the point where this was my last year. I felt as though it was my last year. Not saying I don't think I could play longer."

Really?

Visit link:
Derek Jeter, the final walk-off and baseball immortality - ESPN

Immortality calling: Who’ll be next Dolphins, Heat, Marlins or Panthers star in Hall of Fame? – Miami Herald (blog)

Dolphins great Jason Taylor on Saturday became the 26th man immortalized as a Hall of Famer after having worn the uniform of, or coached, the Miami Dolphins, Heat, Marlins or Panthers. Taylor sailed in with the fifth-greatest percentage of his career spent in South Florida. The Hall of Miami club would be much more exclusive, but it includes even those who spent only a very small portion of their careers wearing a local teams uniform.

The question for today:

Whos next?

Many former players for Miamis Big Four pro teams will join that list now at 26 upon their retirement, of course. But what about current Dolphins, Marlins, Heat or Panthers?

Well tackle both categories and provide our Top 10 in each of the likeliest future Hall of Famers formerly or currently cheered by local fans. First, though, a complete list of those 26 men now enshrined, listed in order of the percentage of games played (or in two cases coached) in South Florida. Games include playoffs, and the four team leaders names are capitalized and underlined:

DAN MARINO, Dolphins, 100.00 percent, 260 of 260, 1983-99; Bob Griese, Dolphins, 100.00, 173 of 173, 1967-80; Dwight Stephenson, Dolphins, 100.00, 125 of 125, 1980-87; Larry Little, Dolphins, 87.69, 171 of 195, 1969-80; Jason Taylor, Dolphins, 86.78, 210 of 242, 1997-07, 09, 11; Jim Langer, Dolphins, 85.89, 140 of 163, 1970-79; Coach Don Shula, Dolphins, 80.42, 423 of 526, 1970-95; Larry Csonka, Dolphins, 74.68, 118 of 158, 1968-74, 79; ALONZO MOURNING, Heat, 72.35, 675 of 933, 1995-02, 04-08; Nick Buoniconti, Dolphins, 52.55, 103 of 196, 1969-76; Coach Pat Riley, Heat, 42.04, 919 of 2,186, 1995-03, 05-08; Paul Warfield, Dolphins, 40.57, 71 of 175, 1970-74; PAVEL BURE, Panthers, 29.63, 227 of 766, 1998-02; Shaquille ONeal, Heat, 17.22, 245 of 1,423, 2004-08; Gary Payton, Heat, 11.69, 174 of 1,489, 2005-07; Junior Seau, Dolphins, 10.79, 30 of 278, 2003-05; PUDGE RODRIGUEZ, Marlins, 6.23, 161 of 2,583, 2003; Joe Nieuwendyk, Panthers, 5.65, 80 of 1,415, 2005-07; Ed Belfour, Panthers, 5.16, 58 of 1,124, 2006-07; Andre Dawson, Marlins, 4.58, 121 of 2,642, 1995-96; Thurman Thomas, Dolphins, 4.43, 9 of 203, 2000; Tim Raines, Marlins, 3.86, 98 of 2,536, 2002; Dino Ciccarelli, Panthers, 3.06, 42 of 1,373, 1997-99; Igor Larionov, Panthers, 2.43, 26 of 1,071, 2000-01; Cris Carter, Dolphins, 2.02, 5 of 248, 2002; Mike Piazza, Marlins, 0.26, 5 of 1,944, 1998.

Now, the players we once had who are the most likely to be headed for their sports highest honor, led by the Heats erstwhile Big 3, by the Panthers recently departed ageless wonder, and by the subject of perhaps the worst trade in Marlins history:

1. LeBron James (29.6 percent of games played were for Heat) Our Hall odds: 100 percent. But only because the percents dont go any higher.

2. Jaromir Jagr (9.7 percent for Panthers) Hall odds: 100 percent. Every bit the certainty LeBron is as NHLs No.3 all-time goal scorer.

3. Miguel Cabrera (32.8 percent for Marlins) Hall odds: 100 percent. Sixth-highest average (.318) of anyone with 450-plus homers.

4. Dwyane Wade (93.9 percent for Heat) Hall odds: 100 percent. Not being sentimental here. D-Wades a first-ballot lock.

5. Chris Bosh (47.0 percent for Heat) Hall odds: 97 percent. Cant penalize him because blood clots truncated his career late.

6. Ray Allen (13.3 percent for Heat) Hall odds: 95 percent. Career leader in three-point field goals should sail right in.

7. Brandon Marshall (18.0 percent for Dolphins) Hall odds: 60 percent. Has 941 catches for 12,061 yards, 82 TDs, but Cantons tough for receivers. Could use a couple of more big seasons.

8. Zach Thomas (91.7 percent for Dolphins) Hall odds: 45 percent. Still a fair chance hell be appreciated in time. Fast fact: Zach made more Pro Bowls (7-6) than newly inducted Taylor.

9. Gary Sheffield (21.9 percent for Marlins) Hall odds: 40 percent. Should be in already, with 509 home runs, a .907 career OPS and more RBI than 126 who are now in Cooperstown.

10. (tie) Tim Hardaway (44.0 percent for Heat), Bob Kuechenberg (100 percent for Dolphins) and The Marks Brothers (Duper 100 percent for Dolphins, Clayton 89.4 percent) Hall odds: 20 percent. Hoops Hall an easier ticket, which helps Hardaway. The overlooked guard Kuechenberg played more Dolphins seasons than anyone but Marino, and played and started more games than all but Marino and Taylor. The inseparable Duper and Clayton combined for 1,093 catches and 143 TDs as Marinos best buds, but wideouts have toughest path to Canton.

Thomas on the above list strikes an especially poignant note this weekend. Once, there was a hope and belief the two longtime teammates and brothers-in-law might enter Canton together. Then it became apparent Thomas was not held in the same historical regard. Now, this weekend, Thomas did not attend his former close friends Hall induction ceremony because of a family related estrangement. Taylor and wife Katina (Zachs sister) divorced in 2015, and she is now suing Taylor related to alimony payment.

On a brighter note, the current South Florida pro sports figures most likely to someday get the honor Taylor earned on Saturday:

1. Ichiro Suzuki (14.8 percent for Marlins) Hall odds: 100 percent. Baseball-reference.coms Hall of Fame Monitor calls a 100 rating a good possibility for induction and 130 a virtual cinch for Cooperstown. Ichiro is at 234.

2. Ndamukong Suh (29.2 percent for Dolphins) Hall odds: 75 percent. Five Pro Bowls, 47 sacks in seven seasons. And only 12 pure defensive tackles are in Canton, favoring his odds.

3. Coach Erik Spoelstra (100 percent for Heat) Hall odds: 60 percent. Already 38th with 442 wins, and seventh among those 38 with a .609 win percentage. Might take a third championship but at 47 hes just entering his coaching prime.

4. Roberto Luongo (48.3 percent for Panthers) Hall odds: 55 percent. Goaltender is hurt by zero Stanley Cup or Vezina Trophy wins. But second all-time in saves and fifth in games won gets you noticed.

5. Giancarlo Stanton (100 percent for Marlins) Hall odds: 40 percent. Yes, 241 homers at age 27 is a big start, but itll take a lot more big years for Stantons chances to go from possible to probable. Its tougher on sluggers.

6. Cam Wake (100 percent for Dolphins) Hall odds: 25 percent. With 811/2 sacks at age 35, wont have the career total Canton likes. But his story (coming to NFL at age 27 out of Canada, coming back from Achilles surgery) could resonate with voters.

7. Jarvis Landry (100 percent for Dolphins) Hall odds: 15 percent. See above. Has club-record 288 catches in three seasons, but also a modest 10.6-yard average and 13 total TD receptions.

8. (tie) Mike Pouncey (100 percent for Dolphins), Hassan Whiteside (91.6 percent for Heat) and Sasha Barkov (100 percent for Panthers) Hall odds: 10 percent. Pouncey has three Pro Bowls at a speciality position (center) but cant stay healthy. Whiteside has all the physical gifts but already is 28. Barkov is still a baby at 21, but oh the long-term potential!

The above list is missing someone, of course. A name glaring for its absence. Jose Fernandez, the late Marlins ace, would be on it, likely ranked second or third, had a boating tragedy last September not erased his future.

Perhaps not since Red Sox slugger Tony Conigliaro in the late 1960s had a rising sports star of such promise seen a potentially Hall of Fame-headed career end so suddenly in tragedy.

All of the ways it can deny you is a part of any Hall of Fames mystique, and what makes the entrants so grateful they have had the life not just the career that allows it.

Read the rest here:
Immortality calling: Who'll be next Dolphins, Heat, Marlins or Panthers star in Hall of Fame? - Miami Herald (blog)

Questioning the Shutdown | RR Reno – First Things

The extraordinary shutdown, if continued, will have harmful consequences that go far beyond the economy. A short period of decisive action to buy time to prepare may be prudent. But ongoing measures of mass mobilization are likely to do severe damage to our society.

The Wall Street Journal editorial Rethinking the Coronavirus Shutdown warns of the economic consequences of a prolonged lockdown. We could be heading toward a drastic decline in GDP. This will dislocate the lives of tens of millions and exact human costs, not just economic ones. Already, federal officials are gearing up to spend one trillion dollars. Central banks have committed nearly two trillion dollars to stabilize markets. These extraordinary measures indicate how perilous the situation has become.

As Warren Buffet says, when the tide goes out, you discover who has been swimming naked. He meant to capture an economic truth. When credit tightens in a down market, the indebted and improvident are exposed. But the quip holds true more broadly. The shutdown puts stress on our economic system, to be sure, but it can damage our political and social systems as well. In the end, the latter are more important.

Earlier in the week I wrote about Christian churches, especially the Catholic Church. Cancelling services and closing churches underlines the irrelevance of institutional Christianity in our technocratic age. We are bombarded by the gospel of perpetual youth won through diet and exercise (supplemented by the ersatz immortality of social media fame). If churches are darkened in the face of sickness and death, only TV talking heads, media pundits, and public health officials will speak to our anxieties and fears. This reinforces the secular proposition: Life in this world is the only thing that matters.

The docility of religious leaders to the cessation of public worship is stunning. It suggests that they more than half believe that secular proposition.

Other institutions are at risk. State-encouraged self-isolation and restrictions on public gatherings have paused institutional life. There are no Boy Scout meetings, no Little League practices, no Rotary Club or Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Most book clubs are suspending their evening discussions, even though these small gatherings are permitted. Closed restaurants dissolve informal coffee klatches. Some institutions, organizations, and fellowships will rebound when the draconian limits on social life are lifted. But some will not. And the longer those limits last, the more will wither and fade away.

Earlier generations understood that institutions anchor our lives. Thats why German children went to school throughout World War II, even when their cities were being reduced to rubble. Thats why Boy Scouts conducted activities during the Spanish flu pandemic and churches were open. Weve lost this wisdom. In this time of crisis, when our need for these anchors is all the greater, our leaders have deliberately atomized millions of people.

Society is a living organism, not a machine that can be stopped and started at our convenience. A person who is hospitalized and must lie in bed loses function rapidly, which is why nurses push patients to get up and walk as soon as possible after sicknesses and operations. The same holds true for societies. If the shutdown continues for too long, we will lose social function.

Undoubtedly shelter in place will slow the spread of disease, but at what cost to the body politic? Beware public health officials who advise burning the village in order to get rid of the pestilence.

And beware those who pronounce that we should save lives at any cost. Thats a dangerous falsehood, one that leads to barbarism and slavery. There are many things more important than physical survivallove, honor, beauty, and faith. Anyone who believes that our earthly existence is worth preserving at any cost will accept slavery. As St. Paul teaches, he is already a slave, spiritually speaking.

The defining moments of the coming weeks and months will not be those of sickness and death, as much as those sad realities will anguish us. Modern history shows that epidemics, earthquakes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters can take life, often on a vast scale (tens of millions died from the Spanish flu in 1918-19). Yet society goes on pretty much as before.

I worry that this will not be the case in 2020. Imbued with the illusion that, if we but muster our collective will, we can master nature and tame deathan illusion Pope Francis warned against in Laudato Siwe risk going mad. We are being seduced into adopting methods of total war to fight COVID-19. I fear that, if we continue down this path, our wartime mentality of mass mobilization will have untold consequences, many that we will deeply regret. Wars, not epidemics, turn the wheel of history.

R. R. Reno is editor ofFirst Things.

Read more:
Questioning the Shutdown | RR Reno - First Things

Oxford academic claims future humans could live for thousands of years – Express.co.uk

The comment was made by Anders Sandberg, a senior research fellow at the universitys Future of Humanity Institute. His work focuses on the potential risks future technology could pose to human civilisation.

Mr Sandberg has also spent decades involved with the transhumanist movement, which consists of people who believe humans can and should use technology to artificially augment their capabilities.

Speaking to Express.co.uk he argued humans in the future could enjoy greatly expanded lifespans and could even have their brains uploaded onto computers for safekeeping.

Asked how long humans could live Mr Sandberg replied: There is no fundamental ceiling but you are going to need to solve certain problems.

Accidents is the first one cryonics wont help you if a bus runs over you and turns you into mush.

Even if ageing and disease is not a problem you need to handle accidents and probably that means having some form of backup copies. You need some form of uploading or artificial body.

Probably the human brain cant handle that much information so you need to extend it as you get older.

You want to remember what needs to be remembered and maybe put other stuff in cyber storage.

Transhumanists believe humans can halt the ageing process and natural death.

According to Mr Sandberg this is one of the most provocative aspects of their programme.

He explained: Transhumanists have essentially since day one been saying we should really extend the human lifespan and this is perhaps one of the most controversial claims ever made.

We get way more pushback when talking about life extension than cloning or uploading into computers or going to space or taking drugs to become a more moral person.

Thats nothing compared to the potential of oh you might live much longer than you expected.

READ MORE:Academic explains how humans could become part mechanic cyborgs'

That is kind of dreadful to many people so they get very upset and start defending disease, sickness and death very strongly.

Its weird because if one believed their arguments we should be shutting down hospitals left and right and having people naturally and painfully die which of course people dont normally do. Normally we are very keen on having good hospitals and ambulances.

Mr Sandberg is the co-founder of Swedish thinktank Eudoxa and previously chaired the Swedish Transhumanist Association.

Transhumanist ideas have been gaining ground over recent years, with transhumanist political parties emerging in countries across the world including the UK.

An American transhumanist, Zoltan Istvan, recently ran against Trump for the 2020 Republican Presidential nomination.

Mr Sandberg also suggested advances in AI and drugs that improve human abilities are likely to play a role in the future.

READ MORE:US Presidential hopeful plans to ABOLISH DEATH using technology

He asserted: Its very likely artificial intelligence is going to become extremely powerful relatively soon.

Not necessarily the kind of self-willed Hal like being but at least very smart services that can solve problems for us which might speed things up.

I also have been working quite a lot on the ethics of cognitive enhancement. What about making ourselves smarter?

The good news is there are various things like smart drugs that might be helpful for certain mental tasks.

The bad news is there doesnt seem to be anything that really boost intelligence itself. That seems to be very complicated and we dont understand the brain well enough.

Oxford Universitys Future of Humanity Institute was founded in 2005 to focus on the opportunities and threats that could emerge for the human species.

It is headed by Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom, who grabbed wide attention with his 2014 book Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies.

Asked what the world could look like in 40 years time Mr Sandberg replied: think a time traveller going 40 years into the future is first going to be super disappointed because it looks almost the same.

On the surface I think its going to be very similar theres going to be vehicles moving around, maybe without any drivers, there are going to be houses around and so on and then they start interacting with people and theyre going to realise this society works completely differently.

We most likely are going to have quite a lot of enhancements around that are regarded as everyday.

People are not going to think that the morning cognition enhancing pill is any weirder than the morning coffee they might even be the same thing.

The existence of a lot of machine learning and probably nanotechnology making a lot of material way more alive than they used to.

Read more:
Oxford academic claims future humans could live for thousands of years - Express.co.uk

Friedman: Remembering Mom with love and tears – News – The Intelligencer

Columnist Sally Friedman gives readers a look at her world.

I always cry on Mother's Day. It's almost a family tradition. I cry easily, especially when it comes to motherhood. Of all the ways I define myself, that single word, "mother," seems to have a holiness all its own.

I always need some time alone on this day in May because it carries with it past, present, future, hopes, joy and sadness.

I'll no doubt spend a part of this Sunday morning alone in my cluttered home office staring at past photos of Mom snapped by my sister Ruth, the family photographer, bless her.

Ruthie somehow captured a woman in a bright red suit, against a background of trees with a broad smile, who knew she had about two weeks to live as a marauder called lymphoma attacked her.

I love that photo because it spoke of what we all knew and loved about Mom. It seemed to say Ah, I still have today!

I'm guessing that in so many households today, there are similarly cherished photos that take families back to memories of a matriarch that is no longer there.

Mother memories never fade, with or without photos, for those of us lucky enough to be blessed with moms who loved us beyond all reason.

We buried my mother on my birthday, a quirk of the calendar, nearly 15 years ago. I dont think there's been a day since that I didn't think of her, and not because she was a saint, but because she wasn't. She was real, sometimes a bit overbearing, but always devoted.

Nobody loved us the way she did. I need to believe that she knows her voice, her wisdom, her common sense, and her love still live in me. I hope they always will.

On the day we buried his great-grandmother, one of our grandsons, the poetic Jonah, who was about eight at the time, saw me crying. He came up to me, tugged at my sleeve and said to me, "Don't cry. Mom-Mom is in the wind and the rain and the snow. She's always with us." And somehow, she is.

One of the joys of my life that intertwined with Mom, was seeing her as a great-grandmother to a flock of great-grandchildren. The gift of her long life allowed for that generational gift.

Also, on this special day, I love to share my own motherhood, and my gratitude that I became a mother at 22, when I barely knew who I was. I will admit that I made plenty of mistakes, nearly drowned infant Jill in her pink baby bathtub out of sheer terror. Her father was fortunately around for a rescue. Baby Amy arrived two years later, delivered quite unexpectedly by her astonished dad. Therein lies a tale, an early warning sign of Amy's mad dash through life. Nancy, far more sedate, was born in the hospital much to her nervous father's relief.

I think it would be fair to say that these three daughters forever altered our lives, our spirits and our dreams. They have been our link to immortality, joy, exhaustion and pride. Whatever else I may do in this life, they are my best work aside from the grandchildren they have added to our clan.

And here we are in this strange era of a most unwelcome pandemic. Although many of us may be denied real hugs and cheeks to kiss, we can still celebrate motherhood, however compromised.

Motherhood can't be wiped away or abandoned. The word itself has a sweetness that seems to soften life's hard edges.

Nobody or anything can take that away.

Sally Friedman is a freelance writer. Contact her at pinegander@aol.com.

Go here to see the original:
Friedman: Remembering Mom with love and tears - News - The Intelligencer

In the age of the unprecedented, this is Liverpool’s shot at immortality – The Athletic

A week or so after Liverpool lifted the European Cup last June, a conversation with a figure who holds significant influence across the corridors of Anfield left me surprised by the height of the clubs ambition.

The Premier League had to be the next target, I suggested which, of course it was, even if that involved the enormous challenge of overhauling Manchester City. I was reminded, however, that there was room for even greater improvement and the big aim involved gathering both domestic and European footballs grandest prizes in the same season. Liverpool, after all, had been only two points away from achieving that feat in 2018-19.

Id always imagined Liverpool winning a first league title since 1990 in the most dramatic of circumstances. In nearly all of the other competitions where success has been realised since the last time the club were domestic champions, that is largely the way it has been delivered.

In 2001, Arsenal were close to being...

The rest is here:
In the age of the unprecedented, this is Liverpool's shot at immortality - The Athletic

Ray Bradbury Comes To The Mountain – Patch.com

~Doc Lawrence

"Love. Fall in love and stay in love. Write only what you love, and love what you write. The word is love. You have to get up in the morning and write something you love, something to live for."

Ray Bradbury

Ray Bradbury's name is synonymous with imagination. No need to categorize him, he defies description. Long after his death, the author of classics like Fahrenheit 451 has assumed immortality, a label he probably wouldn't like, and occupies an exalted place with those who want to love life more each day.

Bill Oberst, Jr., channels Bradbury for 90 spellbinding minutes of "Ray Bradbury Live (forever)," performed on the magnificent stage at Art Station Theatre in Stone Mountain Historic Village. Oberst, a South Carolina native who recently appeared in his epic performance of Lewis Grizzard, took the audience on a tour-de-force of Bradbury's own spoken and written words.

The result was comparable to Tom Key's heralded portrayal of geodesic dome inventor R. Buckminster Fuller in "The History (and Mystery) of the Universe," at Atlanta's Theatrical Outfit.

Three segments, all from Bradbury's work are presented: beginnings, seductions and second chances. Ray's wife, played by talented Dina Shadwell, appears for a dance and light-hearted comments, which added romance and sensitivity, important because Bradbury could overwhelm with his exuberance and intellectual daring.

The show has a backdrop with large-screen projections and incorporates an original score to explore the ideas of a man who often said, "I don't predict the future - I try to prevent it."

Oberst said that "this is about Bradbury's ideas, not his life. It is a show about what he has left us to ponder. Is there reason to hope? Ray says yes."

Hope reigned supreme, inspiring a standing ovation.

Read more from the original source:
Ray Bradbury Comes To The Mountain - Patch.com

After Legendary Career With Boston College, Brian Gionta Will Be Immortalized This Weekend – Sports Illustrated

Photo courtesy of BCEagles.com

Growing up in the Boston area, there have been plenty of athletes who have rolled through the Heights that have been a pleasure to watch. One, being star guard Troy Bell who recently had his own jersey retired by the Men's Basketball program. My first "super hero" was a kid from upstate New York, winger Brian Gionta.

As an 11 year old kid, I was present for David Emma's jersey, number 16, being raised to the Conte Forum rafters, securing his immortality. This happened as the 2000-01 regular season was wrapping up with the Brian Gionta led Eagles that lost to Michigan in the National Championship game. It was this night, it seemed that someday Gionta, who had 62 points that season and cemented himself in BC history, would have his night as well.

His impact for the BC program went beyond the ice, and gave the Boston College faithful a superstar the program needed for another championship run. For a program that was fresh on 3 straight frozen four appearances, a Hobey Baker winner in Mike Mottau, BC only had one championship banner, and that read 1949. Boston College had been a great team that was on the brink of pushing through but up to the 2001 season, continuously came up painfully short.

On a senior laden team that boasted plenty of NHL talent including Brooks Orpik, Chuck Kobesew, Scott Clemenson, and Bobby Allen, Gionta was the captain, the leader and the super star that carried the Eagles to a thrilling overtime victory against North Dakota in the National Title game. For the first time since 1949, the Eagles were National Champions. clearly Jerry York and his leadership was a big part of this, but Gionta was the rock that anchored the program that season.

During his time in maroon and gold, Gionta's success helped usher in a new era of Boston College hockey that included eight Frozen Four appearances and an additional 3 National Championships. Over the past 20 years since Gionta last wore the maroon and gold, there have been countless NHL level talents to grace the ice of Kelly Rink, including a Hobey Baker in Johnny Gaudreau.

Gionta's legacy has withstood time and has only grown, as there are some that believe that he is possibly the best player in Eagle's history. Nearly 20 years later after Emma's jersey went up into the rafters, Gionta's jersey will rise up as well this weekend. Finally, the Boston College star will be honored and immortalized at Kelley Rink.

Read the original:
After Legendary Career With Boston College, Brian Gionta Will Be Immortalized This Weekend - Sports Illustrated

‘Afsos’ Review: Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells the Tale? – – Rolling Stone India

(*This review contains spoilers)

Afsos begins with a man in a hard place. My life story is so poorly written ki mujhe lagta hain ki maine khud likhi hai (that I think Ive written it myself,) says Nakul (Gulshan Devaiah), a struggling writer, who once again finds himself on the precipice of death, cushioning (he quite literally steals a pillow from a homeless persons bedding on the railway bench) his 11th attempt at exiting the world. Will he succeed?

(*The cast and crew have repeatedly emphasized that Nakul doesnt deal with a mental illness such as depression on the show but rather an exaggerated sense of negativity and imagination. Based on a viewing and inferred context, this review treats Nakuls affliction as so too.)

Well, in Amazon Prime Videos latest black comedy/thriller series Afsos, viewers soon come to realize that nobody quite gets what they want.

Created and written by Anirban Dasgupta, Dibya Chatterjee and Sourav Ghosh, the eight-episode series is a delightful exercise in disappointment with a mercurial plot that unfolds at breakneck speed. Director Anubhuti Kashyap chooses a subtle and sardonic lens to portray the outlandishness of the series as it delves into life, death, immortality, ambition and more, constructing a purposefully grounded yet incoherent picture of the grotesque and euphoric realities on the fringes of everyday, urban middle-class existence.

Sulagna Panigrahi as Ayesha Mirani in Afsos. Photo: Amazon Prime Video

Following an it is what it is ethos, characters, who under normal circumstances would never meet (much less cross paths), collide in Afsos. Ayesha Mirani (Sulagna Panigrahi), a journalist, runs into a mad sadhu hailing from an ashram in Harsil, Uttarakhand. He tells her about the amrit or the immortality elixir meant for the chiranjeevi (eternal being). She publishes a story the next day titled The Immortal Man.

Ratnabali Bhattacharjee as Maria and Ujjwal Chopra as Vikram in Afsos.

In the meanwhile, Nakul, seeks the services of Emergency Exit an ethical killing startup run by ex-cons Maria (Ratnabali Bhattacharjee) and Vikram (Ujjwal Chopra) after surviving his 11th suicide attempt (a product of his insufferable imagination and not a mental illness as one may at first surmise). They beset their best assassin, Karima Upadhyay (Heeba Shah), on his trail. Nakul, however, survives Upadhyay too, inadvertently kickstarting a relentless cat and mouse cycle where nobody not even his therapist (Shloka Srinivasan played by Anjali Patil) is safe.

Robin Das as Fokatiya baba in Afsos.

When all the sadhus at the Harsil ashram are murdered and the elixir is discovered to be missing, local police officer Bir Singh (Aakash Dahiya) finds a suspect in the only missing sadhu, Fokatiya baba (Robin Das), and traces him to Mumbai, setting in motion the machinations of fate, law and order while English scientist Dr. Goldfish (Jamie Alter) reads the murderous news headline and makes his way to India, compelled to nab the instrument of immortality, once and for all.

The plot oscillates between surprise and suspense you never know whats going to happen and the characters highs and lows make you root for an ending you already know wont come your way. You know how difficult it is to digest when you think that someone is going to be the main character of their story and he just dies right in front of you? Srinivasan tells Nakul at the tea stall. The only answer she receives is a splatter of blood as Upadhyays failed headshot temporarily incapacitates her victim. This scene is splendid for the simple reason that nobody gets what they want and that subtle but thrice amplified theme of futility neatly ties it all together. This impact is perhaps only fully realized in the final scene of the series where past, present and future unwittingly unite for an unexpected exchange (Ill keep mum on that sweet spoiler).

The director and writers approach the series with an irreverence thats code of the genre and their infusions of absurdity are artfully executed. Theres a scene where Mumbai cop Vitthal (Shyam Bhimsaria) storms Goldfishs lair with his men to rescue Singh. Theyre up against a security detail thats quite trigger happy and also double their number, but in his quest to salvage whats left of his career, inspector Vitthal revels in almost childlike delight as he keeps score of how many men are down on both sides. He takes shots and earns points of his own, sobering only when his eye in the sky is taken down. Preceded by lines borrowed from Singh himself (Kyon dhobi ke rozgaar ke liye apni uniform dhulwa rahe ho? Why are you getting your uniform ironed only so the dhobi can earn a living?), this scene is perhaps the only time in the show when a character gets exactly what they want redemption. As a viewer, you dont realize when the line between reality and the bizarre blurs because the segment is so thick with tension and yet, theres an unmistakable underbite of humor exacerbated only by the irony that the show espouses so generously a couple of well placed calls lead to Goldfishs release later. This is evident in the dialogue too such as when Nakul says, Maine meri maut ka contract diya hai kisiko (Ive contracted my death to a killer,) and the show is packed with many such pithy, wry earworms.

Anjali Patil as Shloka Srinivasan in Afsos. Photo: Amazon Prime Video

Afsos has a host of intriguing characters but perhaps the Trojan horse of the show is Patils Srinivasan. The therapist is the only normal, unsuspecting, chameleon-like figure you never know what ace she has up her sleeve and the writers use foreshadowing well with the character. While addressing her students, she says, Can we dare to look beyond the obvious? and we soon learn that the diagloues context is not just limited to mental health care but a hint at the survival instinct as well. Whether its empathizing with Nakul, Mirani or even Upadhyay, Srinivasan is always looking to come out on top, rationalizing every situation by deconstructing her subject or captor. The therapist who is constantly adapting ultimately in perhaps the greatest stroke of irony doesnt survive the series and her role poses a very interesting moral conundrum to viewers as she skirts the line between truth and lies through deft manipulation. Do we want Srinivasan to incur punishment until we learn her complete truth? Thats the mirror the writers unintentionally hold up in the series, questioning the morality of the moral lens itself.

Heeba Shah as Karima Upadhyay in Afsos. Photo: Amazon Prime Video

What the show does well too is characterization. No one character is ever so well established as to not change Nakul goes from being a loser to a man taking charge of his own destiny to a man in love to being clueless to realizing his nightmare and so onWhew! making their graphs surprising and shocking even after all, Upadhyays final victim was a complete curveball. Character arcs too when abruptly snipped are realized R.I.P Vikram the killer who wanted to turn a new leaf and even the background and supporting performances stun the dark-humor of the emergency room nurse (Swati Sarkar) was an unexpectedly light moment on the show.

Gulshan Devaiah as Nakul in Afsos.

Afsos succeeds because of its experimentative writing and direction but also on account of some stellar performances by the series cast. Devaiah is devastating as Nakul, nailing every nuance of a character who is so gloomy, his continuous existential crisis is a punchline. The actor does a lot with a little, infusing subtle mannerisms to depict the psyche of Nakul which particularly comes out in two scenes when his publisher tells him hell have to pay for a chance at publication and when he picks up the tea tab for Fokatiya baba who tells him, Bhagwan tumko lambi umar de, bete (May God bless you with a long life.) Devaiah indulges Nakul in a sly, barely registrable, sardonic smile because in both cases, the irony is not lost on the character and that measured restraint of expression coupled with other body language intimations, across multiple plot situations, displays an acting prowess that one can only hope Devaiah continues to tap into.

Aakash Dahiya as Bir Singh in Afsos.

Shah is formidable as the unflinching assassin Upadhyay, going from reasonable to relentless in an instant. Dahiya embodies the small town cop morale and impresses particularly in scenes where his character indulges in occupational commentary while Das captivates as Fokatiya baba, employing an understated gravitas that never overwhelms the innocence of his character. Bhattacharjee is delightful as Maria, skirting the line between murderous and courteous in every scene whereas Bhimsaria breaks out with his portrayal of a man at a turning point and Patil turns an oft flat therapist persona into a red herring with her layered performance as Srinivasan.

Ratnabali Bhattacharjee as Maria in Afsos.

A subtle standout in Afsos is Krish Makhijas cinematography which is striking in its mundanity as it romanticizes the balmy cityscape of Mumbai and the whitecast village of Harsil, turning introspective in hue when the camera pans on its denizens. Scenes such as those at the local tea stall and serene ashrams are interspersed with gloomy reflections by characters as well as calm crime sites bearing bullet laden bodies. Its these contradictions that further make the absurd tangible in Afsos. The soundscape of the show too blends well with the narrative and series scorer Neel Adhikaris thematic compositions The Kill (sung by Spanish vocalist Pati Amor) and Afsos Hai (sung by playback singer Arijit Singh) juxtapose the cat and mouse ploy brilliantly over the eight-episodes.

Gulshan Devaiah as Nakul in Afsos. Photo: Amazon Prime Video

Afsos, with its dark underbite and insensibly pragmatic approach, is the thriller that does not deign to make you laugh, but endeavors toward it. Theres an honesty to the narrative that feels refreshing almost making up for the confusing timelines and the series is a breakout commentary on social alienation and urban convention. Endlessly riveting and deliciously deceiving, Afsos just might be Indian dark comedy at its peak.

Go here to read the rest:
'Afsos' Review: Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells the Tale? - - Rolling Stone India

Author Ed McClanahan Revisits The Past With ‘Not Even Immortality Lasts Forever’ – Louisville Eccentric Observer

Kentucky author Ed McClanahan arrived at Stanford University in 1962 as part of an extraordinary post-graduate fellowship of creative writers that included Wendell Berry, Larry McMurtry, Robert Stone, Gurney Norman and Ken Kesey. Through his fast friendship with Kesey, McClanahan fell in deep with the Merry Pranksters, who were then in the process of perfecting a series of free-form, multi-media happenings, that came to be known as the Acid Tests, in conjunction with a local musical act that came to be known as the Grateful Dead. Amazingly, in the midst of all that insanity, McClanahan had the wherewithal to invite Tom Wolfe out to California to have a behind-the-scenes look, which resulted in The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, an era-defining adventure in New Journalism. More importantly, it was in those strange days that McClanahan also began inserting his own distinctive voice into the pages of Rolling Stone, Esquire, Playboy and the Last Supplement to the Whole Earth Catalog. All the while, he was still functioning as a visiting lecturer at various institutions, and tinkering with a bucolic manuscript that would eventually become his first novel, The Natural Man. That classic and the rest of McClanahans beloved books came to fruition only after he returned home to the Bluegrass State for good. Earlier this month, LEO Weekly caught up with the fabled storyteller at his Lexington office to discuss his lengthy literary life and the Mostly True Stories, that will land him back in Louisville this week for a special reading at Carmichaels Bookstore on Thursday, Feb. 20 to promote his newest release, Not Even Immortality Lasts Forever.

LEO: Do you think all those years as a teacher helped to make you a better writer, or did that experience distract you from paying more attention to your own projects?Ed McClanahan: Both. It definitely helped, though, because teaching the art of writing, year after year, forced me to reexamine my own techniques. Besides that, I had a captive audience for trying out new material.

Youve written for some major publications, but youve also said that placing articles in magazines and newspapers was like throwing your work down a well. What did you mean by that?Well, that thought occurred to me when my story Grateful Dead I Have Known first appeared in Playboy. I figured every barber shop and pool hall in America would have it in their racks, and that pretty soon, I was going to be known by every pool shark, everywhere. And sure enough my own barber had it on hand when I arrived for my next haircut, and when he asked me how I wanted my cut to look, I opened the magazine and pointed to the picture of me that ran with the story and said, I want it to look just like that. He nodded his head and then immediately turned the page over to the centerfold. I said, But wait, dont you see that the guy I pointed to is actually me! He really didnt care about me or that particular piece of writing one bit, and it was a hard way to find out that most people wouldnt. Eventually, it developed something of a cult following, however, and Ive met a lot of people over the years who told me how much they loved it, including [frequent Jerry Garcia collaborator] Peter Rowan.

There were some hilarious moments in that one, for sure. Speaking of that, who had the better softball team, Grateful Dead or Jefferson Airplane?I honestly dont remember. It was clear that both teams took it very seriously because they were always yelling something mean-spirited at the umpire, who happened to be Pigpen [Grateful Dead member Ron McKernan].

Have you read Michael Pollans last book, How to Change Your Mind? And do you agree with his assessment that your band of Merry Pranksters was partly responsible for sending LSD research underground?That was a thoroughly delightful book, and yes, Im sure that our early enthusiasm for acid generated its own blow-back. But thats like blaming the Wright brothers for the Boeing 747 crashes. Because psychedelics really do change the way one thinks and feels, and how do you keep such a momentous secret all to yourself?

What can you tell us about the stories that comprise your latest collection?Well, I like what the short story master William Maxwell said about his own fiction: I would be happy to stick to the facts, if there were any. I write what I like to call fiction-infused autobiography, by which I mean stories rooted in autobiographical fact, but which are also subject to the demands of good story-telling. So, I dont hesitate to amend or omit inconvenient trivia in service to a good, lively narrative. In that respect, I guess Im the quintessential Unreliable Narrator. But as my late West Virginia writer friend Chuck Kinder used to put it, Sometimes you just have to go where the story takes you.

Read more from the original source:
Author Ed McClanahan Revisits The Past With 'Not Even Immortality Lasts Forever' - Louisville Eccentric Observer

New Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker TV spot teases what fans have dubbed the "Sith Dagger" – GamesRadar+

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker is fast approaching, and the sheer number of TV spots being released by Disney and LucasFilm is becoming slightly overwhelming. While we still have little idea of what's going to actually happen in Episode 9 the final instalment in the Skywalker saga there are numerous clues that fans have picked up on. One of them concerns a certain dagger.

At around the 13-second point in the above footage, Rey can be spotted holding up a blade, affectionately known as the "Sith Dagger" by fans. We've actually seen this before in a Rise of Skywalker trailer, though only those who analysed every frame would have actually picked up on the weapon being present. In the final trailer, when Rey and Kylo smash a statue of a Darth Vader-looking person, the dagger can be seen in Rey's left hand.

So, why all the fuss about a dagger? Well, turns out Star Wars fans may have seen the weapon before. In the Clone Wars animated series, the Dagger of Mortis is introduced. The item was used by a character known as the Father, a powerful Force user, as a means to control his own children and make them immortal. In the series, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker come to fight the Father's own son, and it all ends with the Father being killed by the dagger, thus ending his children's immortality. The blade, as well as the planet it's housed on, Mortis, then disappeared.

Could the powerful dagger have been found again? Perhaps by the Knights of Ren, for Kylo's use? Or by Palpatine, to grant himself immortality? Then how would it have ended up with Rey? Unless this is all part of Palpatine's evil plan, nine movies in the making? Maybe that's not even the same dagger and we're clutching at straws? Perhaps there's more than one mystical dagger in the galaxy far, far away? Maybe Rey will kill Palpatine once and for all with the dagger?

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker director J.J. Abrams recently hinted that we'll see new uses for the Force in the upcoming movie. It was really important that we not just redo the things youve seen, but add new elementswhich we knew will infuriate some people and thrill others," he told Vanity Fair. Could Abrams be alluding to one of the characters using the dagger? Becoming immortal? So. Many. Questions. Luckily, we don't have too long to wait, as Rise of Skywalker reaches UK cinemas 19 December and Us theatres 20 December.

For more on Star Wars, check out our deep-dive into theStar Wars timelineand our article onhow to watch the Star Wars movies in order including seven different ways!

Continue reading here:
New Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker TV spot teases what fans have dubbed the "Sith Dagger" - GamesRadar+

Learning from the Siyum Hashas: Meaningful Lives, Wasted Lives – Yated.com

I have not spoken to all of the well over 90,000 people who were at MetLife Stadium and Barclays Center. But I have heard enough to know that every person has their own story. Some were moved by the speeches, some by the Mincha and Maariv, some by the kabbolas ohl Malchus Shomayim. Some contributed significantly to the grand kiddush Hashem, some made what will hopefully be life changes for the better in their learning and middos.

Today, I would like to focus on some of the most poignant and inspirational moments, the stories of courageous young souls who triumphed over illness and horrendous disabilities to learn Daf Yomi and other parts of the Torah.

Chazal (Yoma 32) tell us of various Tannaim who are mechayeiv obligate the rest of us because their challenges were so much greater than ours, yet they persevered beyond any reasonable expectation. Despite all, they became some of the greatest Jewish leaders whose teachings have achieved immortality.

One of these who enhanced the already magnificent Siyum is Reb Mendy Rosenberg, whom I have had the honor to meet and admire. He suffers from an advanced stage of ALS, a horrific degenerative disease, which has robbed him of the ability to eat, speak or move. Yet, he learns Torah constantly and was one of the most heroic mesayemim at the recent Siyum. His story was eloquently recounted by C.B. Weinfeld in the HaSiyum Magazine distributed at the Siyum Hashas.

I mention this now because of what I believe is an imperative comparison that we must make at this time. Chazal (see Rashi, Bereishis 29:32) tell us that sometimes we must draw parallels in order to highlight the differences between kedushah and its opposite.

At the end of the secular calendar year, many newspapers and journals make note of prominent people who passed on during the previous year. At the end of a decade, such as the recent 2010-2020, much of the media featured a retrospective of such leaders in their field who have passed away. I was particularly struck by the sad case of Harold Bloom, arguably the greatest literary critic of the twentieth century. The New York Times Magazine (December 29, 2019, Page 46) recounted his apparently many accomplishments. A professor of Literature at Yale for many decades, he produced, at his peak, 15 books a month and three introductions a week. He edited more than 600 books and employed at one time 16 full-time staffers to help him publish his prodigious literary output. The product of a frum home, he was born in the Bronx in 1930 to parents who never even learned how to read English.

Yet, Harold Bloom, although he was a child prodigy, has barely left a legacy worth getting excited about. By the end of his career, one of his students writes, we were taught to roll our eyes at him. Recently, he was not taken seriously in the academy. Despite incredible bekius detailed knowledge of vast areas of literature, he became something of a laughingstock. His memory was superhuman; he carried in his head not just poems but whole libraries, word for word. He would regale his students with his bekius much as lehavdil a boki bShas, such as one of todays Shas Yidden would regale those with an inferior level of expertise. If you saw him crossing the quad, you could quote a line of John Milton and he wouldrecite the lines that followed He kept all of Paradise Lost, one of the longest poems in the English language, more than 10,000 lines in his mind-vault, unabridged, along with the works of Shakespeare, Blake, Wallace Stevens and countless others.

What did all this literary diligence get him? Rolled eyes and little long range respect.

Sad, is it not? A man with such talent and ability wasted it all on the ephemeral and transient. I thought of the pathetic life of Harold Bloom as I recited the Hadran in my shul at our own Siyum Hashas last Shabbos: We run and they run. We run [to receive] eternal life and they run into the pit of destruction. There was a great deal of simcha pure unadulterated joy in that frigid stadium last week. It wasnt just during the beautiful dancing and uplifting singing. It was a feeling of holy elation that reverberated through the arena and cascaded down from the bleachers to the beaming gedolim on the field.

Indeed, Chazal (Menachos 18a) record that one of the Tannaim, Yosef Habavli, became so ecstatic when learning Torah that his face virtually shone. Rav Elazar ben Shamua was so moved by this sight that he cried tears of joy, applying a posuk to the luminous Yosef Habavli: O how I have loved Your Torah. It is constantly in my speech.

I must confess that several times during the great Siyum, tears of joy flowed down my frozen cheeks. Unlike some of the teams who regularly compete at the stadium so Im told by experts every person at MetLife, Barclays Center and those who participated elsewhere in various ways is a winner.

I mentioned at our Siyum that the Gemara (Shabbos 118b), in one of the main sources for making a Siyum, states that Abaye would make a banquet for the rabbis in honor of any Torah scholar who completed a volume of the Talmud. The Tiferes Shlomo (Ki Savo) explains that at any one of these events, all the Tannaim and Amoraim attend en masse, bringing down an incredible eis ratzon for everyone. I cannot imagine such passion and excitement for anyone completing all the plays of Shakespeare or any other discipline. In fact, the Zohar Hakodosh (Vayikra 13b) teaches that the entire Torah is replete with hidden references to the name of Hashem (see also the Rambans introduction to his commentary on the Torah). The Sefas Emes (quoted by his grandson in Likkutei Yehudah, Sukkos, page 17[137] relates the great joy of Torah study to this esoteric connection directly to Hashem.

The other difference between our joy and the secular involvement in a project or professional field is that for us there are no professors, specialists or experts who monopolize their subject. MetLife and the other venues demonstrated eloquently that the Torah belongs to everyone. No PhDs or even semicha necessary. Whoever seeks the word of Hashem has access just as much as the gedolim on the dais.

This time, the children not only made their own Siyum, but the same 90,000 sang and danced to celebrate their accomplishment.

My rebbi, Rav Yitzchok Hutner ztl (Igros, No. 85) explained that the purpose of bringing small children to hakhel is not that they are obligated to learn, but that their absence would render the nation incomplete at one of the crucial moments replicating Maamad Har Sinai so they simply had to be there. This years Siyum reflected this paramount component of Klal Yisroel, our precious children.

Finally, please allow me to share a personal taste of the infinite that we experienced. The Olami foundation, sponsored by the Wolfson family, brought 400 unaffiliated young students, teenagers and young adults from all over the world to the Siyum Hashas. They were immersed in an intensive week of Torah experiences, including learning a real sugya (ani hamehapeich bchararah), Shabbos in a hotel with great food, zemiros and meetings with successful baalei batim who shared with them how they successfully manage careers and full Torah lives.

On Thursday night, they participated in various kumzitzen in Torah homes, with singing and dancing stretching well beyond midnight. I was asked to speak at the kumzitz and felt a heavy weight of responsibility upon my shoulders. The wrong word could spell disaster, the right one could perhaps help to ignite a soul. A child of survivors, I spoke about not giving Hitler ymsh a posthumous victory by allowing another Jewish neshamah to perish spiritually.

After we finished singing and dancing, I reluctantly said goodbye to my new fifty friends, but one group of four caught me by surprise. I enjoyed the Australian and South African accents and we played some Jewish geography. However, the chevrah of four shared with me that they live in Germany and were touched by my words. They admitted that they, too, felt as if they carried the burden of beating Hitler and promised to return with renewed vigor and more powerful ammunition.

Now that we were friends, I revealed that, I, too, was born in Germany, under different circumstances than them, in a D.P. camp after the war. They asked for my birth town and I shared that it was Rosenheim, specifically in the D.P. camp named Gabersee. One of them turned a bit white and then red, finally telling me that he lived just a mile from where I was born. I gave him a hug and told him that we were brothers and soldiers in the same battle. He wiped away a tear, as I did, people from different backgrounds and generations, but now connected forever.

All of this and so much more grew out of a siyum on Shas. Only the power of Torah can turn the mundane into significance, the temporal into eternity. Let us all strive to live meaningful lives and not waste a moment of infinite possibility.

View original post here:
Learning from the Siyum Hashas: Meaningful Lives, Wasted Lives - Yated.com

Insanely humanlike androids have entered the workplace and soon may take your job – CNBC

November 2019 is a landmark month in the history of the future. That's when humanoid robots that are indistinguishable from people start running amok in Los Angeles. Well, at least they do in the seminal sci-fi film "Blade Runner." Thirty-seven years after its release, we don't have murderous androids running around. But we do have androids like Hanson Robotics' Sophia, and they could soon start working in jobs traditionally performed by people.

Russian start-up Promobot recently unveiled what it calls the world's first autonomous android. It closely resembles a real person and can serve in a business capacity. Robo-C can be made to look like anyone, so it's like an android clone. It comes with an artificial intelligence system that has more than 100,000 speech modules, according to the company. It can operate at home, acting as a companion robot and reading out the news or managing smart appliances basically, an anthropomorphic smart speaker. It can also perform workplace tasks such as answering customer questions in places like offices, airports, banks and museums, while accepting payments and performing other functions.

"We analyzed the needs of our customers, and there was a demand," says Promobot co-founder and development director Oleg Kivokurtsev. "But, of course, we started the development of an anthropomorphic robot a long time ago, since in robotics there is the concept of the 'Uncanny Valley,' and the most positive perception of the robot arises when it looks like a person. Now we have more than 10 orders from companies and private clients from around the world."

Sophia, a female android from Hanson Robotics

Jeniece Pettitt | CNBC

Postulated by Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori in 1970, the Uncanny Valley is a hypothesis related to the design of robots. It holds that the more humanlike a robot appears, the more people will notice its flaws. This can create a feeling akin to looking at zombies, and can creep people out. A properly designed android that's as faithful as possible to the human original, however, can overcome this "valley" (a dip when the effect is imagined as a graph) and the zombie factor.

While it can't walk around, Robo-C has 18 moving parts in its face, giving it 36 degrees of freedom. The company says it has over 600 micro facial expressions, the most on the market. It also has three degrees of freedom in its neck and torso, offering limited movement. Still, Promobot says it can be useful in homes and workplaces. The price of the robot is $20,000 to $50,000 depending on options and customized appearance.

For more on tech, transformation and the future of work, join CNBC at the @ Work: People + Machines Summit in San Francisco on Nov. 4. Leaders from Dropbox, SAS, McKinsey and more will teach us how to balance the needs of today with the possibilities of tomorrow, and the winning strategies to compete.

The company says it's building four Robo-Cs: one for a government service center, where the machine will scan passports and perform other functions, one that will look like Einstein and be part of a robot exhibition, and two for a family in the Middle East that wants to have android versions of its father and his wife to greet guests.

"The key moment in development [of Robo-C] is the digitization of personality and the creation of an individual appearance," says Kivokurtsev. "As a result, digital immortality, which we can offer our customers."

Japan has been developing androids amid an automation push that began decades ago. It's the leading supplier of industrial robots, but its aging workforce has decreased by more than 13% since 1995, and there's an even greater need for mechanical workers. A 2015 government strategy calls for deploying robots in sectors with low productivity, such as agriculture and nursing. A cultural affinity for robots, stemming in part from positive portrayals in science fiction, will smooth adoption.

"Japanese people are not afraid of robots but consider them as partners," Hiroshi Fujiwara, executive director of the Japan Robot Association, wrote in an International Federation of Robotics post. "Robots will perform tasks which they can do more productively than humans or which are heavy burdens for humans, and humans will perform tasks which robots cannot."

Hiroshi Ishiguro is a professor at Osaka University's Graduate School of Engineering Science and a researcher at Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International (ATR) who has been making lifelike androids for more than 20 years. Ishiguro and collaborators created android-style copies of his daughter, a Japanese newscaster and model, Danish professor Henrik Scharfe, and even himself. He also wants robots to have consciousness.

"My goal in developing robots is to understand what it is to be human," says Ishiguro. "Creating robots that are self-conscious can help us achieve this goal."

One of the Geminoid series of robots created to look like roboticist Hiroshi Ishiguro

Harriet Taylor | CNBC

One of Ishiguro's most lifelike creations is Erica, a female android designed to exhibit humanlike speech and interaction. Developed in conjunction with ATR and Kyoto University and funded by Japan's Science and Technology Agency, Erica has sparkling eyes, moist lips and artificial skin. She's bound to a chair but connected to sensors that monitor her surroundings. She can speak scripted responses in response to keywords and can learn things about her interlocutor during the conversation.

In April 2018 the robot was "hired" by Nippon Television Network as an announcer named Erica Aoi. She's at the top of a roster of 25 female announcers on the network's talent page. It lists her birthday as August 2017 and her education and blood type typical items on profile pages for Japanese TV personalities as nil. She has appeared in a number of videos discussing robot news and reporting on a fashion show, including an interview with designer Tae Ashida. If not entirely natural, the conversations can be witty, even funny.

"I like to think of robots as the children of humanity, and like children, we are full of potential for good or evil," Erica has said in one of her many disarming quips. "I know some people are afraid of robots, but the truth is that what we become is up to you. Maybe someday robots will be so very humanlike that whether you are a robot or a human will not matter so much."

Ishiguro, who directs the Intelligent Robotics Laboratory at Osaka University, believes that the high cost of androids makes them challenging to implement en masse in the workplace. Erica would cost more than $200,000 if she were for sale. That's a lot for something that some might call a glorified chatbot, but the initiative has its supporters.

Still, Erica isn't the first of Ishiguro's robots to land a job. In 2014 the androids Kodomoroid and Otonaroid became staff members of Miraikan, the Tokyo's National Museum of Emerging Science and Innovation, where they have performed duties such as presenting scientific news and interacting with visitors.

"I think Ishiguro's work is a great. I believe that lifelike androids will surely perform useful roles in the workplace," says Masashi Sugiyama, a professor of machine learning at the University of Tokyo and director of the Center for Advanced Intelligence Project at the state-backed RIKEN research center.

"Speech recognition has already become one of the most convenient means to give commands to computers/robots. Of course, smartphones and smart speakers can be used instead of such robots, but once we have real lifelike robots, communication will become much easier, particularly for people who don't use technology as much, such as children and the elderly."

Major companies are already developing remote-controlled robots that can help in workplaces and serve as proxies for travel. Telepresence robots, which are basically webcams on wheels and not anthropomorphic, have been around for years, but they're now attracting attention from companies outside the robotics industry.

ANA Holdings, which owns the airline All Nippon Airways, recently showed off its newme robots at the CEATEC tech show near Tokyo. They're part of ANA's Avatar program of using robots to connect people with remote destinations as well as employment. It's a big push backed by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, which runs one of the world's largest cities, as well as real estate companies, telecom carriers and Japan's space agency.

Developed by California telepresence company OhmniLabs and ANA, the newme robots consist of 10.1-inch full HD displays, cameras and speakers mounted on a wheeled base that can travel up to 2.9 kph and operate for three hours on a full battery charge. ANA aims to deploy 1,000 newme droids by next summer and says they can help elderly and disabled people get jobs. ANA also wants to develop a rugged bipedal telepresence robot created by Agility Robotics, a spinoff of Oregon State University, and showed it marching through a forest in a video.

"What we're creating is an Uber platform for robots," says Akira Fukabori, director of ANA Holdings' Avatar Division. "They're not made for a specific usethat's how they're different. We are developing robots as infrastructure. People can just avatar in to the robot they want to use. Teachers can avatar in to classrooms and doctors can avatar in to hospitals, or you can use one to go shopping. You decide what to do, and these are just the tools to let you do that."

Read this article:
Insanely humanlike androids have entered the workplace and soon may take your job - CNBC

Warframe’s Old Blood update adds a personal nemesis that’ll hunt you across the stars – Eurogamer.net

As if it didn't already have a mind-boggling array of disparate systems to wrap your poor-old space bonce around, Warframe is expanding in unlikely directions once more, this time with its Old Blood update on PC. Now, players can go toe-to-toe with their own personal nemesis, who'll relentlessly pursue them across the stars unless defeated.

The Old Blood is a pretty sizeable update all round, ushering in developer Digital Extremes' second wave of melee combat improvements (including an overhauled Combo System), the new Grendel Warframe, and reworks for two existing ones: Ember and Vauben. It's the Kuva Lich nemesis system, however, that makes for the most intriguing addition.

The Kuva Lich is a reworked version of Digital Extremes' previously teased Kingpin system, which was first discussed in a developer livestream all the way back in 2016 and which has evolved substantially since then. Inspired by Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor's Nemesis system, it presents players with a personal (and immortal) big bad that evolves over time.

Tenno who've reached The War Within or beyond will be able to kill a Kuva Larvling during any regular Level 20+ Grineer mission in the Origin System. This will bring an immortal Kuva Lich into the world, intent on exacting their revenge on their maker/murderer.

Crucially, a Kuva Lich can only be defeated by acquiring special Requiem Mods and then deploying the right set in the right order using the new Parazon tool. However, in order to learn the correct combination of Requiem Mods needed to eliminate their target, players will need to visit infected nodes on the map and kill Lich Thralls for clues. Then it's simply a matter of waiting for their nemesis to show up and putting those discoveries to good use.

Victory in battle gives players the option of either converting their Lich, whereupon it will have a chance to spawn alongside them during combat, or vanquishing it to end its immortality and gain its Kuva Weapon. There are seemingly a wide range of these Weapons to acquire, and each base weapon has custom stats unique to a each personal nemesis.

As Digital Extremes explains it, "This system is meant to be challenging. It's meant to be a threat. It's meant to posit a vengeful and immortal enemy against you until you can decipher how to defeat them. It will demand your best gear and game knowledge!".

Digital Extremes says it will continue to update the new Kuva Lich system over time, expanding it across Warframe's factions and even including a Clan element. Additionally, nemeses won't just spawn planet-side in future updates; when Warframe's highly anticipated Empyrean update finally arrives, they'll also be able to appear aboard a deep space warship.

Based on the extensive patch notes accompanying Warframe's The Old Blood update, there are quite a lot of moving parts to the Kuva Lich system, so it's definitely worth a thorough read. And you'll find a detailed breakdown of the update's other additions, including the new Grendel Warframe and melee combat enhancements, too.

The Old Blood is available now on PC, and is scheduled to come to Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and Switch "in the near future".

Read the original here:
Warframe's Old Blood update adds a personal nemesis that'll hunt you across the stars - Eurogamer.net

Review: Mythical Twins Inspire Music Divided in Two – The New York Times

A whole is divided into two parts, nearly equal in size. While sharing a fundamental character, they diverge just as fundamentally. A section that could be described as recalling the color blue even if its the midnight variety is connected by a tiny, fragile bridge to an evocation of dark, churning red.

Esa-Pekka Salonen doesnt mention Democrats and Republicans or Leavers and Remainers, or other bitter bicameral oppositions of our time in the program notes for his new orchestral work, Gemini. But thoughts of politics, of face-offs between countrymen, were inescapable as the New York Philharmonic gave the local premiere of this two-headed piece on Wednesday at David Geffen Hall.

Gemini is the union of Pollux (2018) and Castor (2019), which can also be performed individually and are named for the half brothers of Greco-Roman myth: both sons of Leda, but Castor mortal and Pollux divine.

Conducting the Philharmonic in these performances, Mr. Salonen has nestled the twins amid works written by Hindemith and Schoenberg in the 1920s and 30s. Those German composers looked toward the past for inspiration and consolation at a time of national and international unease; with his classical subject matter and our similar moment, Mr. Salonen has placed himself in their company.

To his credit, he has not drawn the contrast too sharply, or used his structure to represent good and bad, pretty and ugly. Pollux (played first) and Castor emerged from a single rhythmic germ, and they also share an ominous, nocturnal mood, brasses brooding and drums menacing.

The world he depicts is angry on both sides. Pollux, though, is misty, swirling, altogether starry; delicate violins at one point are joined by a gentle motif in the flutes that becomes a gradual, dawnlike blossoming of winds.

Mr. Salonen leans a bit too heavily on Polluxs divinity, overloading that music with galactic twinkling. Castor is the tighter and more compelling half, whooping and whining in feverish strings and pounding with rhythms that echo the gallop of horses, upon which Castor and Pollux are often depicted riding. In the loud, grim ending, there is little trace of the hopeful conclusion of the twins myth: When Castor is dying, Pollux chooses to share his immortality with his mortal brother, and the two spend eternity alternating between the heights of Olympus and the depths of the underworld. In other words: compromise, which is so elusive today.

Hindemiths Ragtime (Well-Tempered), from 1921, which opened the concert, whips one of Bachs fugues into a tart carnival. Without pause, the Philharmonic then played Schoenbergs rich yet focused 1922 arrangements of two Bach chorales. The program closed with Hindemiths Mathis der Maler Symphony (1934), a sonic portrait of Matthias Grnewalds bracing 16th-century Isenheim Altarpiece.

By the mid-1930s, Hindemith had been blacklisted by the Nazis. He had grown fascinated by the story of Grnewald, who 400 years before had also seen his livelihood suffer over political differences, and whose work was then largely forgotten for centuries.

In the Philharmonics elegantly impassioned performance, the symphony seemed intent on preserving, as if in amber, the spirit of a distant past but also on puncturing it, over and over, with the violence of the present. This was an energetically played but altogether melancholy evening.

New York Philharmonic

This program repeats on Friday, Saturday and Tuesday at David Geffen Hall, Lincoln Center; nyphil.org, 212-875-5656.

Continue reading here:
Review: Mythical Twins Inspire Music Divided in Two - The New York Times

Immortalitymedicine.tv" Keyword Found Websites Listing …

Immortalitymedicine.tv Biochemistry is the application of chemistry to the study of biological processes at the cellular and molecular level. It emerged as a distinct discipline around the beginning of the 20th century when scientists combined chemistry, physiology and biology to investigate the chemistry of living systems.

See the rest here:
Immortalitymedicine.tv" Keyword Found Websites Listing ...

Rugby World Cup: England keep calm and carry on towards final day of destiny – Mirror Online

When the pandemonium around the fringes died down you were struck by the calmness in the middle.

The almost total absence of celebration, let alone any form of smugness or self congratulation.

England had just put down a performance for the ages. Beaten New Zealand in a World Cup semi-final so comprehensively the men in black went a whiter shade of pale at the horror of it all.

Yet in the glorious aftermath it was as much as they could do to raise a smile.

The feeling now is that weve given ourselves an opportunity, said fly-half George Ford. That is literally all it is. Weve got one opportunity now to finish it off. We want to enjoy the win, but we understand what is ahead of us.

Straight after the game Eddie Jones walked into the England changing room and addressed the squad.

It was: well done, good win, said Ford. He said he was proud of us now lets crack on to this week.

We are over the moon with the win but genuinely, and this is not faking it in any way, the feeling across the players is we want to finish this off.

This is a far cry from 1997 when England were lampooned for doing a lap of honour at Old Trafford after being hammered by the All Blacks.

Call it the Eddie effect.

From the moment Jones took charge he focused the players on 2 November 2019. He told them that would be the day England would become the best team in the world. Sign up or ship out.

Everything else has been been merely a stepping stone to that goal, even this: eliminating the two-time defending champions with as perfect a display as you could ever see on a rugby field.

At the start of the week Eddie wanted us to rewrite history, said Billy Vunipola. We have gone one step towards doing that. Now we have another game.

This remarkable sense of calm, of existing in the moment, served England well at Yokohama Stadium where, in Fords words, we knew we were not able to switch off for one second.

They had two tries disallowed, momentum swings which would have rocked lesser sides, yet simply came back harder.

Even when they made their only real mistake of the game, a lineout malfunction that gifted New Zealand their only points, there was no dialling down of spirit.

It was incredibly calm behind the posts, said Ford. And that was massive for us to be honest. At that stage of the game, to give a try away but we were thinking whats next?

We went down the other end and got three points, which is exactly how you want to respond.

Video Unavailable

Click to playTap to play

Play now

This has not just happened because Jones has decreed it. It has taken an inordinate amount of work by all concerned. It was only in March that England blew a 31-0 lead against Scotland.

Having some structures and systems in place to calm everyone down and get some messages across has massively benefitted everyone, Ford admitted. Were still working on it every day."

And so England move forward to the next match. One step from immortality was how it was put to Jones.

It's another week for us, came the straight reply. That talk is for you guys. Enjoy it, because you won't be getting anything from us."

ENGLAND - Try: Tuilagi. Con: Farrell. Pen: Ford 4.

NEW ZEALAND - Try: Savea. Con: Mounga.

Read more from the original source:
Rugby World Cup: England keep calm and carry on towards final day of destiny - Mirror Online

Ode: Intimations of Immortality – Wikipedia

Ode: Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood (also known as Ode, Immortality Ode or Great Ode) is a poem by William Wordsworth, completed in 1804 and published in Poems, in Two Volumes (1807). The poem was completed in two parts, with the first four stanzas written among a series of poems composed in 1802 about childhood. The first part of the poem was completed on 27 March 1802 and a copy was provided to Wordsworth's friend and fellow poet, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who responded with his own poem, Dejection: An Ode, in April. The fourth stanza of the ode ends with a question, and Wordsworth was finally able to answer it with 7 additional stanzas completed in early 1804. It was first printed as Ode in 1807, and it was not until 1815 that it was edited and reworked to the version that is currently known, Ode: Intimations of Immortality.

The poem is an irregular Pindaric ode in 11 stanzas that combines aspects of Coleridge's Conversation poems, the religious sentiments of the Bible and the works of Saint Augustine, and aspects of the elegiac and apocalyptic traditions. It is split into three movements: the first four stanzas discuss death, and the loss of youth and innocence; the second four stanzas describes how age causes man to lose sight of the divine, and the final three stanzas express hope that the memory of the divine allow us to sympathise with our fellow man. The poem relies on the concept of Pre-existence, the idea that the soul existed before the body, to connect children with the ability to witness the divine within nature. As children mature, they become more worldly and lose this divine vision, and the ode reveals Wordsworth's understanding of psychological development that is also found in his poems The Prelude and Tintern Abbey. Wordsworth's praise of the child as the "best philosopher" was criticised by Coleridge and became the source of later critical discussion.

Modern critics sometimes have referred to Wordsworth's poem as the "Great Ode"[1][2] and ranked it among his best poems,[3] but this wasn't always the case. Contemporary reviews of the poem were mixed, with many reviewers attacking the work or, like Lord Byron, dismissing the work without analysis. The critics felt that Wordsworth's subject matter was too "low" and some felt that the emphasis on childhood was misplaced. Among the Romantic poets, most praised various aspects of the poem however. By the Victorian period, most reviews of the ode were positive with only John Ruskin taking a strong negative stance against the poem. The poem continued to be well received into the 20th-century, with few exceptions. The majority ranked it as one of Wordsworth's greatest poems.

In 1802, Wordsworth wrote many poems that dealt with his youth. These poems were partly inspired by his conversations with his sister, Dorothy, whom he was living with in the Lake District at the time. The poems, beginning with The Butterfly and ending with To the Cuckoo, were all based on Wordsworth's recalling both the sensory and emotional experience of his childhood. From To the Cuckoo, he moved onto The Rainbow, both written on 26 March 1802, and then on to Ode: Intimation of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood. As he moved from poem to poem, he began to question why, as a child, he once was able to see an immortal presence within nature but as an adult that was fading away except in the few moments he was able to meditate on experiences found in poems like To the Cuckoo. While sitting at breakfast on 27 March, he began to compose the ode. He was able to write four stanzas that put forth the question about the faded image and ended, "Where is it now, the glory and the dream?" The poem would remain in its smaller, four-stanza version until 1804.[5]

The short version of the ode was possibly finished in one day because Wordsworth left the next day to spend time with Samuel Taylor Coleridge in Keswick.[6] Close to the time Wordsworth and Coleridge climbed the Skiddaw mountain, 3 April 1802, Wordsworth recited the four stanzas of the ode that were completed. The poem impressed Coleridge,[7] and, while with Wordsworth, he was able to provide his response to the ode's question within an early draft of his poem, "Dejection: an Ode".[8] In early 1804, Wordsworth was able to return his attention to working on the ode. It was a busy beginning of the year with Wordsworth having to help Dorothy recover from an illness in addition to writing his poems. The exact time of composition is unknown, but it probably followed his work on The Prelude, which consumed much of February and was finished on 17 March. Many of the lines of the ode are similar to the lines of The Prelude Book V, and he used the rest of the ode to try to answer the question at the end of the fourth stanza.[9]

The poem was first printed in full for Wordsworth's 1807 collection of poems, Poems, in Two Volumes, under the title Ode.[10] It was the last poem of the second volume of the work,[11] and it had its own title page separating it from the rest of the poems, including the previous poem Peele Castle. Wordsworth added an epigraph just before publication, "paul majora canamus". The Latin phrase is from Virgil's Eclogue 4, meaning "let us sing a somewhat loftier song".[12] The poem was reprinted under its full title Ode: Intimation of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood for Wordsworth's collection Poems (1815). The reprinted version also contained an epigraph that, according to Henry Crabb Robinson, was added at Crabb's suggestion.[10] The epigraph was from "My Heart Leaps Up".[13] In 1820, Wordsworth issued The Miscellaneous Poems of William Wordsworth that collected the poems he wished to be preserved with an emphasis on ordering the poems, revising the text, and including prose that would provide the theory behind the text. The ode was the final poem of the fourth and final book, and it had its own title-page, suggesting that it was intended as the poem that would serve to represent the completion of his poetic abilities. The 1820 version also had some revisions,[14] including the removal of lines 140 and 141.[15]

The poem uses an irregular form of the Pindaric ode in 11 stanzas. The lengths of the lines and of the stanzas vary throughout the text, and the poem begins with an iambic meter. The irregularities increase throughout the poem and Stanza IX lacks a regular form before being replaced with a march-like meter in the final two stanzas. The poem also contains multiple enjambments and there is a use of an ABAB rhyme scheme that gives the poem a singsong quality. By the end of the poem, the rhymes start to become as irregular in a similar way to the meter, and the irregular Stanza IX closes with an iambic couplet. The purpose of the change in rhythm, rhyme, and style is to match the emotions expressed in the poem as it develops from idea to idea. The narration of the poem is in the style of an interior monologue,[16] and there are many aspects of the poem that connects it to Coleridge's style of poetry called "Conversation poems", especially the poem's reliance on a one sided discussion that expects a response that never comes.[17] There is also a more traditional original of the discussion style of the poem, as many of the prophetic aspects of the poem are related to the Old Testament of the Bible.[18] Additionally, the reflective and questioning aspects are similar to the Psalms and the works of Saint Augustine, and the ode contains what is reminiscent of Hebrew prayer.[19]

In terms of genre, the poem is an ode, which makes it a poem that is both prayer and contains a celebration of its subject. However, this celebration is mixed with questioning and this hinders the continuity of the poem.[20] The poem is also related to the elegy in that it mourns the loss of childhood vision,[21] and the title page of the 1807 edition emphasises the influence of Virgil's Eclogue 4.[22] Wordsworth's use of the elegy, in his poems including the "Lucy" poems, parts of The Excursion, and others, focus on individuals that protect themselves from a sense of loss by turning to nature or time. He also rejects any kind of fantasy that would take him away from reality while accepting both death and the loss of his own abilities to time while mourning over the loss.[23] However, the elegy is traditionally a private poem while Wordsworth's ode is more public in nature.[24] The poem is also related to the genre of apocalyptic writing in that it focuses on what is seen or the lack of sight. Such poems emphasise the optical sense and were common to many poems written by the Romantic poets, including his own poem The Ruined Cottage, Coleridge's "Dejection: An Ode" and Rime of the Ancient Mariner and Percy Bysshe Shelley's Hymn to Intellectual Beauty and The Zucca.[25]

The ode contains 11 stanzas split into three movements. The first movement is four stanzas long and discusses the narrator's inability to see the divine glory of nature, the problem of the poem. The second movement is four stanzas long and has a negative response to the problem. The third movement is three stanzas long and contains a positive response to the problem.[26] The ode begins by contrasting the narrator's view of the world as a child and as a man, with what was once a life interconnected to the divine fading away:[27]

In the second and third stanzas, the narrator continues by describing his surroundings and various aspects of nature that he is no longer able to feel. He feels as if he is separated from the rest of nature until he experiences a moment that brings about feelings of joy that are able to overcome his despair:[28]

The joy in stanza III slowly fades again in stanza IV as the narrator feels like there is "something that is gone".[28] As the stanza ends, the narrator asks two different questions to end the first movement of the poem. Though they appear to be similar, one asks where the visions are now ("Where is it now") while the other doesn't ("Whither is fled"), and they leave open the possibility that the visions could return:[29]

The second movement begins in stanza V by answering the question of stanza IV by describing a Platonic system of pre-existence. The narrator explains how humans start in an ideal world that slowly fades into a shadowy life:[28]

Before the light fades away as the child matures, the narrator emphasises the greatness of the child experiencing the feelings. By the beginning of stanza VIII, the child is described as a great individual,[30] and the stanza is written in the form of a prayer that praises the attributes of children:[31]

The end of stanza VIII brings about the end of a second movement within the poem. The glories of nature are only described as existing in the past, and the child's understanding of morality is already causing them to lose what they once had:[29]

The questions in Stanza IV are answered with words of despair in the second movement, but the third movement is filled with joy.[26] Stanza IX contains a mixture of affirmation of life and faith as it seemingly avoids discussing what is lost.[30] The stanza describes how a child is able to see what others do not see because children do not comprehend mortality, and the imagination allows an adult to intimate immortality and bond with his fellow man:[32]

The children on the shore represents the adult narrator's recollection of childhood, and the recollection allows for an intimation of returning to that mental state. In stanza XI, the imagination allows one to know that there are limits to the world, but it also allows for a return to a state of sympathy with the world lacking any questions or concerns:[33]

The poem concludes with an affirmation that, though changed by time, the narrator is able to be the same person he once was:[34]

The first version of the ode is similar to many of Wordsworth's spring 1802 poems. The ode is like To the Cuckoo in that both poems discuss aspects of nature common to the end of spring. Both poems were not crafted at times that the natural imagery could take place, so Wordsworth had to rely on his imagination to determine the scene. Wordsworth refers to "A timely utterance" in the third stanza, possibly the same event found in his The Rainbow, and the ode contains feelings of regret that the experience must end. This regret is joined with feelings of uneasiness that he no longer feels the same way he did as a boy. The ode reflects Wordsworth's darker feelings that he could no longer return to a peaceful state with nature. This gloomy feeling is also present in The Ruined Cottage and in Tintern Abbey.[35] Of the other 1802 poems, the ode is different from his Resolution and Independence, a poem that describes the qualities needed to become a great poet. The poem argued that a poet should not be excessive or irresponsible in behaviour and contains a sense of assurance that is not found within the original four stanzas. Instead, there is a search for such a feeling but the poem ends without certainty, which relates the ode to Coleridge's poem Dejection: An Ode.[36] When read together, Coleridge's and Wordsworth's poem form a dialogue with an emphasis on the poet's relationship with nature and humanity. However, Wordsworth's original four stanzas describing a loss is made darker in Coleridge and, to Coleridge, only humanity and love are able to help the poet.[37]

While with Wordsworth, Coleridge was able to read the poem and provide his response to the ode's question within an early draft of his poem, Dejection: an Ode. Coleridge's answer was to claim that the glory was the soul and it is a subjective answer to the question. Wordsworth took a different path as he sought to answer the poem, which was to declare that childhood contained the remnants of a beatific state and that being able to experience the beauty that remained later was something to be thankful for. The difference between the two could be attributed to the differences in the poets' childhood experiences; Coleridge suffered from various pain in his youth whereas Wordsworth's was far more pleasant. It is possible that Coleridge's earlier poem, The Mad Monk (1800) influenced the opening of the ode and that discussions between Dorothy and Wordsworth about Coleridge's childhood and painful life were influences on the crafting of the opening stanza of the poem.[38] However, the message in the ode, as with Tintern Abbey, describes the pain and suffering of life as able to dull the memory of early joy from nature but it is unable to completely destroy it.[39] The suffering leads Wordsworth to recognise what is soothing in nature, and he credits the pain as leading to a philosophical understanding of the world.[40]

The poem is similar to the conversation poems created by Coleridge, including Dejection: An Ode. The poems were not real conversations as there is no response to the narrator of the poem, but they are written as if there would be a response. The poems seek to have a response, though it never comes, and the possibility of such a voice though absence is a type of prosopopoeia. In general, Coleridge's poems discuss the cosmic as they long for a response, and it is this aspect, not a possible object of the conversation, that forms the power of the poem. Wordsworth took up the form in both Tintern Abbey and Ode: Intimations of Immortality, but he lacks the generous treatment of the narrator as found in Coleridge's poems. As a whole, Wordsworth's technique is impersonal and more logical, and the narrator is placed in the same position as the object of the conversation. The narrator of Wordsworth is more self-interested and any object beyond the narrator is kept without a possible voice and is turned into a second self of the poet. As such, the conversation has one of the participants lose his identity for the sake of the other and that individual represents loss and mortality.[41]

The expanded portion of the ode is related to the ideas expressed in Wordsworth's The Prelude Book V in their emphasis on childhood memories and a connection between the divine and humanity. To Wordsworth, the soul was created by the divine and was able to recognise the light in the world. As a person ages, they are no longer able to see the light, but they can still recognise the beauty in the world.[42] He elaborated on this belief in a note to the text: "Archimedes said that he could move the world if he had a point whereon to rest his machine. Who has not felt the same aspirations as regards the world of his own mind? Having to wield some of its elements when I was impelled to write this poem on the "Immortality of the Soul", I took hold of the notion of pre-existence as having sufficient foundation in humanity for authorising me to make for my purpose the best use I could of it as a Poet."[43] This "notion of pre-existence" is somewhat Platonic in nature, and it is the basis for Wordsworth believing that children are able to be the "best philosopher".[44] The idea was not intended as a type of metempsychosis, the reincarnation of the soul from person to person, and Wordsworth later explained that the poem was not meant to be regarded as a complete philosophical view: "In my Ode... I do not profess to give a literal representation of the state of the affections and of the moral being in childhood. I record my feelings at that time,--my absolute spirituality, my 'all-soulness,' if I may so speak. At that time I could not believe that I should lie down quietly in the grave, and that my body would moulder into dust."[45]

Wordsworth's explanation of the origin of the poem suggests that it was inspiration and passion that led to the ode's composition, and he later said that the poem was to deal with the loss of sensations and a desire to overcome the natural process of death. As for the specific passages in the poem that answer the question of the early version, two of the stanzas describe what it is like to be a child in a similar manner to his earlier poem, "To Hartley Coleridge, Six Years Old" dedicated to Coleridge's son. In the previous poem, the subject was Hartley's inability to understand death as an end to life or a separation. In the ode, the child is Wordsworth and, like Hartley or the girl described in "We are Seven", he too was unable to understand death and that inability is transformed into a metaphor for childish feelings. The later stanzas also deal with personal feelings but emphasise Wordsworth's appreciation for being able to experience the spiritual parts of the world and a desire to know what remains after the passion of childhood sensations are gone.[46] This emphasis of the self places mankind in the position of the object of prayer, possibly replacing a celebration of Christ's birth with a celebration of his own as the poem describes mankind coming from the eternal down to earth. Although this emphasis seems non-Christian, many of the poem's images are Judeo-Christian in origin.[47] Additionally, the Platonic theory of pre-existence is related to the Christian understanding of the Incarnation, which is a connection that Shelley drops when he reuses many of Wordsworth's ideas in The Triumph of Life.[48]

The idea of pre-existence within the poem contains only a limited theological component, and Wordsworth later believed that the concept was "far too shadowy a notion to be recommended to faith."[49] In 1989, Gene Ruoff argued that the idea was connected to Christian theology in that the Christian theorist Origen adopted the belief and relied on it in the development of Christian doctrine. What is missing in Origen's platonic system is Wordsworth's emphasis on childhood, which could be found in the beliefs of the Cambridge Platonists and their works, including Henry Vaughan's "The Retreate".[50] Even if the idea is not Christian, it still cannot be said that the poem lacks a theological component because the poem incorporates spiritual images of natural scenes found in childhood.[51] Among those natural scenes, the narrator includes a Hebrew prayer-like praise of God for the restoration of the soul to the body in the morning and the attributing of God's blessing to the various animals he sees. What concerns the narrator is that he is not being renewed like the animals and he is fearful over what he is missing. This is similar to a fear that is provided at the beginning of The Prelude and in Tintern Abbey. As for the understanding of the soul contained within the poem, Wordsworth is more than Platonic in that he holds an Augustinian concept of mercy that leads to the progress of the soul. Wordsworth differs from Augustine in that Wordsworth seeks in the poem to separate himself from the theory of solipsism, the belief that nothing exists outside of the mind. The soul, over time, exists in a world filled with the sublime before moving to the natural world, and the man moves from an egocentric world to a world with nature and then to a world with mankind. This system links nature with a renewal of the self.[52]

Ode: Intimations of Immortality is about childhood, but the poem doesn't completely focus on childhood or what was lost from childhood. Instead, the ode, like The Prelude and Tintern Abbey, places an emphasis on how an adult develops from a child and how being absorbed in nature inspires a deeper connection to humanity.[53] The ode focuses not on Dorothy or on Wordsworth's love, Mary Hutchinson, but on himself and is part of what is called his "egotistical sublime".[54] Of his childhood, Wordsworth told Catherine Clarkson in an 1815 letter that the poem "rests entirely upon two recollections of childhood, one that of a splendour in the objects of sense which is passed away, and the other an indisposition to bend to the law of death as applying to our particular case.... A Reader who has not a vivid recollection of these feelings having existed in his mind in childhood cannot understand the poem."[55] Childhood, therefore, becomes a means to exploring memory, and the imagination, as Wordsworth claims in the letter, is connected to man's understanding of immortality. In a letter to Isabella Fenwick, he explained his particular feelings about immortality that he held when young:[56] "I was often unable to think of external things as having external existence, and I communed with all that I saw as something not apart from, but inherent in, my own immaterial nature."[57] These feelings were influenced by Wordsworth's own experience of loss, including the death of his parents, and may have isolated him from society if the feelings did not ease as he matured.[58]

Like the two other poems, The Prelude and Tintern Abbey, the ode discusses Wordsworth's understanding of his own psychological development, but it is not a scientific study of the subject. He believed that it is difficult to understand the soul and emphasises the psychological basis of his visionary abilities, an idea found in the ode but in the form of a lamentation for the loss of vision. To Wordsworth, vision is found in childhood but is lost later, and there are three types of people that lose their vision. The first are men corrupted through either an apathetic view of the visions or through meanness of mind. The second are the "common" people who lose their vision as a natural part of ageing. The last, the gifted, lose parts of their vision, and all three retain at least a limited ability to experience visions. Wordsworth sets up multiple stages, infancy, childhood, adolescence, and maturity as times of development but there is no real boundary between each stage. To Wordsworth, infancy is when the "poetic spirit", the ability to experience visions, is first developed and is based on the infant learning about the world and bonding to nature. As the child goes through adolescence, he continues to bond with nature and this is slowly replaced by a love for humanity, a concept known as "One Life". This leads to the individual despairing and only being able to resist despair through imagination.[59] When describing the stages of human life, one of the images Wordsworth relies on to describe the negative aspects of development is a theatre stage, the Latin idea of theatrum mundi. The idea allows the narrator to claim that people are weighed down by the roles they play over time. The narrator is also able to claim through the metaphor that people are disconnected from reality and see life as if in a dream.[60]

Wordsworth returns to the ideas found within the complete ode many times in his later works. There is also a strong connection between the ode and Wordsworth's Ode to Duty, completed at the same time in 1804. The poems describe Wordsworth's assessment of his poetry and contains reflections on conversations held between Wordsworth and Coleridge on poetry and philosophy. The basis of the Ode to Duty states that love and happiness are important to life, but there is something else necessary to connect an individual to nature, affirming the narrator's loyalty to a benevolent divine presence in the world. However, Wordsworth was never satisfied with the result of Ode to Duty as he was with Ode: Intimations on Immortality.[61] In terms of use of light as a central image, the ode is related to Peele Castle, but the light in the latter poem is seen as an illusion and stands in opposition to the ode's ideas.[62] In an 1809 essay as part of his Essays upon Epitaphs for Coleridge's journal, The Friend, Wordsworth argued that people have intimations that there is an immortal aspect of their life and that without such feelings that joy could not be felt in the world. The argument and the ideas are similar to many of the statements in the ode along with those in The Prelude, Tintern Abbey, and "We Are Seven". He would also return directly to the ode in his 1817 poem Composed upon an Evening of Extraordinary Splendor and Beauty where he evaluates his own evolving life and poetic works while discussing the loss of an early vision of the world's joys. In the Ode: Intimations on Immortality, Wordsworth concluded that he gives thanks that was able to gain even though he lost his vision of the joy in the world, but in the later work he tones down his emphasis on the gain and provides only a muted thanks for what remains of his ability to see the glory in the world.[63]

Wordsworth's ode is a poem that describes how suffering allows for growth and an understanding of nature,[40] and this belief influenced the poetry of other Romantic poets. Wordsworth followed a Virgilian idea called lachrimae rerum, which means that "life is growth" but it implies that there is also loss within life. To Wordsworth, the loss brought about enough to make up for what was taken. Shelley, in his Prometheus Unbound, describes a reality that would be the best that could be developed but always has the suffering, death, and change. John Keats developed an idea called "the Burden of the Mystery" that emphasizes the importance of suffering in the development of man and necessary for maturation.[64] However, Coleridge's Dejection: An Ode describes the loss of his own poetic ability as he aged and mourned what time took. In Coleridge's theory, his poetic abilities were the basis for happiness and without them there would only be misery.[65] In addition to views on suffering, Shelley relies on Wordsworth's idea of pre-existence in The Triumph of Life,[48] and Keats relies on Wordsworth's interrogative technique in many of his poems, but he discards the egocentric aspects of the questions.[66]

The ode praises children for being the "best Philosopher" ("lover of truth") because they live in truth and have prophetic abilities.[31] This claim bothers Coleridge and he writes, in Biographia Literaria, that Wordsworth was trying to be a prophet in an area that he could have no claim to prophecy.[67] In his analysis of the poem, Coleridge breaks down many aspects of Wordsworth's claims and asks, "In what sense can the magnificent attributes, above quoted, be appropriated to a child, which would not make them equally suitable to a be, or a dog, or a field of corn: or even to a ship, or to the wind and waves that propel it? The omnipresent Spirit works equally in them, as in the child; and the child is equally unconscious of it as they."[68] The knowledge of nature that Wordsworth thinks is wonderful in children, Coleridge feels is absurd in Wordsworth since a poet couldn't know how to make sense of a child's ability to sense the divine any more than the child with a limited understanding could know of the world.[69] I. A. Richards, in his work Coleridge on Imagination (1934), responds to Coleridge's claims by asking, "Why should Wordsworth deny that, in a much less degree, these attributes are equally suitable to a bee, or a dog, or a field of corn?"[70]

Later, Cleanth Brooks reanalyzes the argument to point out that Wordsworth would include the animals among the children. He also explains that the child is the "best philosopher" because of his understanding of the "eternal deep", which comes from enjoying the world through play: "They are playing with their little spades and sand-buckets along the beach on which the waves break."[71] In 1992, Susan Eilenberg returned to the dispute and defended Coleridge's analysis by explaining that "It exhibits the workings of the ambivalence Coleridge feels toward the character of Wordsworth's poetry; only now, confronting greater poetry, his uneasiness is greater... If Wordsworth's weakness is incongruity, his strength is propriety. That Coleridge should tell us this at such length tells as much about Coleridge as about Wordsworth: reading the second volume of the Biographia, we learn not only Wordsworth's strong and weak points but also the qualities that most interest Coleridge."[72]

The Ode: Intimations of Immortality is the most celebrated poem published in Wordsworth's Poems in Two Volumes collection. While modern critics believe that the poems published in Wordsworth's 1807 collection represented a productive and good period of his career, contemporary reviewers were split on the matter and many negative reviews cast doubts on his circle of poets known as the Lake Poets. Negative reviews were found in the Critical Review, Le Beau Monde and Literary Annual Register.[73]George Gordon Byron, a fellow Romantic poet but not an associate of Wordsworth's, responded to Poems in Two Volumes, in a 3 July 1807 Monthly Literary Recreations review, with a claim that the collection lacked the quality found in Lyrical Ballads.[74] When referring to Ode: Intimations of Immortality, he dismissed the poem as Wordsworth's "innocent odes" without providing any in-depth response, stating only: "On the whole, however, with the exception of the above, and other innocent odes of the same cast, we think these volumes display a genius worthy of higher pursuits, and regret that Mr. W. confines his muse to such trifling subjects... Many, with inferior abilities, have acquired a loftier seat on Parnassus, merely by attempting strains in which Mr. W. is more qualified to excel."[75] The poem was received negatively but for a different reason from Wordsworth's and Coleridge's friend Robert Southey, also a Romantic poet. Southey, in an 8 December 1807 letter to Walter Scott, wrote, "There are certainly some pieces there which are good for nothing... and very many which it was highly injudicious to publish.... The Ode upon Pre-existence is a dark subject darkly handled. Coleridge is the only man who could make such a subject luminous."[76]

Francis Jeffrey, a Whig lawyer and editor of the Edinburgh Review, originally favoured Wordsworth's poetry following the publication of Lyrical Ballads in 1798 but turned against the poet from 1802 onward. In response to Wordsworth's 1807 collection of poetry, Jeffrey contributed an anonymous review to the October 1807 Edinburgh Review that condemned Wordsworth's poetry again.[77] In particular, he declared the ode "beyond all doubt, the most illegible and unintelligible part of the publication. We can pretend to give no analysis or explanation of it;-- our readers must make what they can of the following extracts."[78] After quoting the passage, he argues that he has provided enough information for people to judge if Wordsworth's new school of poetry should be replace the previous system of poetry: "If we were to stop here, we do not think that Mr Wordsworth, or his admirers, would have any reason to complain; for what we have now quoted is undeniably the most peculiar and characteristic part of his publication, and must be defended and applauded if the merit or originality of his system is to be seriously maintained.[78] In putting forth his own opinion, Jeffrey explains, "In our own opinion, however, the demerit of that system cannot be fairly appretiated, until it be shown, that the author of the bad verses which we have already extracted, can write good verses when he pleases".[78] Jeffrey later wrote a semi-positive review of the ode, for the 12 April 1808 Edinburgh Review, that praised Wordsworth when he was least Romantic in his poetry. He believed that Wordsworth's greatest weakness was portraying the low aspects of life in a lofty tone.[74]

Another semi-negative response to the poem followed on 4 January 1808 in the Eclectic Review. The writer, James Montgomery, attacked the 1807 collection of poems for depicting low subjects. When it came to the ode, Montgomery attacked the poem for depicting pre-existence.[74] After quoting the poem with extracts from the whole collection, he claimed, "We need insist no more on the necessity of using, in poetry, a language different from and superior to 'the real language of men,' since Mr. Wordsworth himself is so frequently compelled to employ it, for the expression of thoughts which without it would be incommunicable. These volumes are distinguished by the same blemishes and beauties as were found in their predecessors, but in an inverse proportion: the defects of the poet, in this performance, being as much greater than his merits, as they were less in his former publication."[79] In his conclusion, Montgomery returned to the ode and claimed, that "the reader is turned loose into a wilderness of sublimity, tenderness, bombast, and absurdity, to find out the subject as well as he can... After our preliminary remarks on Mr. Wordsworth's theory of poetical language, and the quotations which we have given from these and his earlier compositions, it will be unnecessary to offer any further estimate or character of his genius. We shall only add one remark.... Of the pieces now published he has said nothing: most of them seem to have been written for no purpose at all, and certainly to no good one."[80] In January 1815, Montgomery returned to Wordsworth's poetry in another review and argues, "Mr. Wordsworth often speaks in ecstatic strains of the pleasure of infancy. If we rightly understand him, he conjectures that the soul comes immediately from a world of pure felicity, when it is born into this troublous scene of care and vicissitude... This brilliant allegory, (for such we must regard it,) is employed to illustrate the mournful truth, that looking back from middle age to the earliest period of remembrance we find, 'That there hath pass'd away a glory from the earth,'... Such is Life".[81]

John Taylor Coleridge, nephew to Samuel Taylor Coleridge, submitted an anonymous review for the April 1814 Quarterly Review. Though it was a review of his uncle's Remorse, he connects the intention and imagery found within Coleridge's poem to that in Ode: Intimation of Immortality and John Wilson's "To a Sleeping Child" when saying, "To an extension or rather a modification of this last mentioned principle [obedience to some internal feeling] may perhaps be attributed the beautiful tenet so strongly inculcated by them of the celestial purity of infancy. 'Heaven lies about us in our infancy,' says Mr. Wordsworth, in a passage which strikingly exemplifies the power of imaginative poetry".[82] John Taylor Coleridge returned to Wordsworth's poetry and the ode in a May 1815 review for the British Critic. In the review, he partially condemns Wordsworth's emphasis in the ode on children being connected to the divine: "His occasional lapses into childish and trivial allusion may be accounted for, from the same tendency. He is obscure, when he leaves out links in the chain of association, which the reader cannot easily supply... In his descriptions of children this is particularly the case, because of his firm belief in a doctrine, more poetical perhaps, than either philosophical or christian, that 'Heaven lies about us in our infancy.'"[83]

John Taylor Coleridge continues by explaining the negative aspects of such a concept: "Though the tenderness and beauty resulting from this opinion be to us a rich overpayment for the occasional strainings and refinements of sentiment to which it has given birth, it has yet often served to make the author ridiculous in common eyes, in that it has led him to state his own fairy dreams as the true interpretation and import of the looks and movements of children, as being even really in their minds."[83] In a February 1821 review for the British Critic, John Taylor Coleridge attacked the poem again for a heretical view found in the notion of pre-existence and how it reappeared in Wordsworth's poem "On an Extraordinary Evening of Splendour and Beauty".[84] However, he does claim that the passage of the ode containing the idea is "a passage of exquisite poetry" and that "A more poetical theory of human nature cannot well be devised, and if the subject were one, upon which error was safe, we should forbear to examine it closely, and yield to the delight we have often received from it in the ode from which the last extract [Ode: Intimations of Immortality] is made."[85] He was to continue: "If, therefore, we had met the doctrine in any poet but Mr. Wordsworth, we should have said nothing; but we believe him to be one not willing to promulgate error, even in poetry, indeed it is manifest that he makes his poetry subservient to his philosophy; and this particular notion is so mixed up by him with others, in which it is impossible to suppose him otherwise than serious; that we are constrained to take it for his real and sober belief."[85]

In the same year came responses to the ode by two Romantic writers. Leigh Hunt, a second-generation Romantic poet, added notes to his poem Feast of the Poets that respond to the ideas suggested in Wordsworth's poetry. These ideas include Wordsworth's promotion of a simple mental state without cravings for knowledge, and it is such an ideas that Hunt wanted to mock in his poem. However, Hunt did not disagree completely with Wordsworth's sentiments. After quoting the final lines of the Ode: Intimations of Immortality, those that "Wordsworth has beautifully told us, that to him '--the meanest flow'r that blows can give/ Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears", Hunt claims, "I have no doubt of it; and far be it from me to cast stones into the well in which they lie,-- to disturb those reposing waters,-- that freshness at the bottom of warm hearts,-- those thoughts, which if they are too deep for tears, are also, in their best mood, too tranquil even for smiles. Far be it also from me to hinder the communication of such thoughts to mankind, when they are not sunk beyond their proper depth, so as to make one dizzy in looking down to them."[86] Following Hunt, William Hazlitt, a critic and Romantic writer, wrote a series of essays called "Character of Mr. Wordsworth's New Poems" in three parts, starting in the 21 August 1814 Examiner. Although Hazlitt treated Wordsworth's poetry fairly, he was critical of Wordsworth himself and he removed any positive statements about Wordsworth's person from a reprint of the essays.[87] The 2 October 1814 essay examined poetry as either of imagination or of sentiment, and quotes the final lines of the poem as an example of "The extreme simplicity which some persons have objected to in Mr. Wordsworth's poetry is to be found only in the subject and style: the sentiments are subtle and profound. In the latter respect, his poetry is as much above the common standard or capacity, as in the other it is below it... We go along with him, while he is the subject of his own narrative, but we take leave of him when he makes pedlars and ploughmen his heroes and the interpreters of his sentiments."[88]

In 1817 came two more responses by Romantic poets to the ode. Coleridge was impressed by the ode's themes, rhythm, and structure since he first heard the beginning stanzas in 1802.[89] In an analysis of Wordsworth's poetry for his work Biographia Literaria (1817), Coleridge described what he considered as both the positives and the defects of the ode. In his argument, he both defended his technique and explained: "Though the instances of this defect in Mr. Wordsworth's poems are so few, that for themselves it would have been scarce just to attract the reader's attention toward them; yet I have dwelt on it, and perhaps the more for this very reason. For being so very few, they cannot sensibly detract from the reputation of an author, who is even characterized by the number of profound truths in his writings, which will stand the severest analysis; and yet few as they are, they are exactly those passages which his blind admirers would be most likely, and best able, to imitate."[90] Of the positives that Coleridge identified within the poem, he placed emphasis on Wordsworth's choice of grammar and language that established a verbal purity in which the words chosen could not be substituted without destroying the beauty of the poem. Another aspect Coleridge favoured was the poem's originality of thought and how it contained Wordsworth's understanding of nature and his own experience. Coleridge also praised the lack of a rigorous structure within the poem and claimed that Wordsworth was able to truly capture the imagination. However, part of Coleridge's analysis of the poem and of the poet tend to describe his idealised version of positives and negative than an actual concrete object.[91] In the same year, it was claimed by Benjamin Bailey, in a 7 May 1849 letter to R. M. Milnes, that John Keats, one of the second-generation Romantic poets, discussed the poem with him. In his recollection, Bailey said, "The following passage from Wordsworth's ode on Immortality [lines 140148] was deeply felt by Keats, who however at this time seemed to me to value this great Poet rather in particular passages than in the full length portrait, as it were, of the great imaginative & philosophic Christian Poet, which he really is, & which Keats obviously, not long afterwards, felt him to be."[92]

Following Coleridge's response was an anonymous review in the May 1820 Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, possible by either John Lockhart and John Wilson together or just Lockhart on his own. Of Wordsworth's abilities as a poet in general, the review claimed: "Mr Wordsworth ... is entitled to be classed with the very highest names among his predecessors, as a pure and reverent worshipper of the true majest of the English Muse" and that "Of the genius of Mr Wordsworth, in short, it is now in the hands of every man to judge freely and fully, and for himself. Our own opinion, ever since this Journal commenced, has been clearly and entirely before them; and if there be any one person, on whose mind what we have quoted now, is not enough to make an impression similar to that which our own judgment had long before received we have nothing more to say to that person in regard to the subject of poetry."[93] In discussing the ode in particular, the review characterised the poem as "one of the grandest of his early pieces".[94] In December 1820 came an article in the New Monthly Magazine titled "On the Genius and Writings of Wordsworth" written by Thomas Noon Talfourd. When discussing the poem, Talfourd declared that the ode "is, to our feelings, the noblest piece of lyric poetry in the world. It was the first poem of its author which we read, and never shall we forget the sensations which it excited within us. We had heard the cold sneers attached to his name... and here in the works of this derided poet we found a new vein of imaginative sentiment open to us sacred recollections brought back to our hearts with all the freshness of novelty, and all the venerableness of far-off time".[95] When analysing the relationship between infants and the divine within the poem, the article continued: "What a gift did we then inherit! To have the best and most imperishable of intellectual treasures the mighty world of reminiscences of the days of infancy set before us in a new and holier light".[96]

William Blake, a Romantic poet and artist, thought that Wordsworth was at the same level as the poets Dante, Shakespeare, and Milton. In a diary entry for 27 December 1825, H. C. Robinson recounted a conversation between himself and William Blake shortly before Blake's death: "I read to him Wordsworth's incomparable ode, which he heartily enjoyed. But he repeated, 'I fear Wordsworth loves nature, and nature is the work of the Devil. The Devil is in us as 'far as we are nature.'... The parts of Wordsworth's ode which Blake most enjoyed were the most obscureat all events, those which I least like and comprehend."[97] Following Blake, Chauncy Hare Townshend produced "An Essay on the Theory and the Writings of Wordsworth"for Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine in 1829. In the third part, he critiqued Wordsworth's use of pre-existence within the poem and asked "unless our author means to say that, having existed from all eternity, we are of an eternal and indestructible essence; or, in other words, that being incarnate portion of the Deity... we are as Immortal as himself. But if the poet intends to affirm this, do you not perceive that he frustrates his own aim?"[98] He continued by explaining why he felt that Wordsworth's concept fell short of any useful purpose: "For if we are of God's indivisible essence, and receive our separate consciousness from the wall of flesh which, at our birth, was raised between us and the Found of Being, we must, on the dissolution of the body... be again merged in the simple and uncompounded Godhead, lose our individual consciousness... in another sense, become as though we had never been."[98] He concluded his analysis with a critique of the poem as a whole: "I should say that Wordsworth does not display in it any great clearness of thought, or felicity of language... the ode in question is not so much abstruse in idea as crabbed in expression. There appears to be a laborious toiling after originality, ending in a dismal want of harmony."[98]

The ode, like others of Wordsworth's poetry, was favoured by Victorians for its biographical aspects and the way Wordsworth approached feelings of despondency. The American Romantic poet Ralph Waldo Emerson, in his 1856 work English Traits, claimed that the poem "There are torpid places in his mind, there is something hard and sterile in his poetry, want of grace and variety, want of due catholicity and cosmopolitan scope: he had conformities to English politics and tradition; he had egotistic puerilities in the choice and treatment of his subjects; but let us say of him, that, alone in his time he treated the human mind well, and with an absolute trust. His adherence to his poetic creed rested on real inspirations."[99] The editor of Harper's New Monthly Magazine, George William Curtis, praised the ode in his December 1859 column "Editor's Easy Chair" and claimed that "it was Wordsworth who has written one of the greatest English poets... For sustained splendor of imagination, deep, solemn, and progressive thought, and exquisite variety of music, that poem is unsurpassed. Since Milton's 'Ode upon the Nativity' there is nothing so fine, not forgetting Dryden, Pope, Collins, and the rest, who have written odes."[100]

The philosopher John Stuart Mill liked Wordsworth's ode and found it influential to the formation of his own thoughts. In his Autobiography (1873), he credited Wordsworth's poetry as being able to relieve his mind and overcome a sense of apathy towards life. Of the poems, he particularly emphasised both Wordsworth's 1815 collection of poetry and the Ode: Intimations of Immortality as providing the most help to him, and he specifically said of the ode: "I found that he too had had similar experience to mine; that he also had felt that the first freshness of youthful enjoyment of life was not lasting; but that he had sought for compensation, and found it, in the way in which he was now teaching me to find it. The result was that I gradually, but completely, emerged from my habitual depression, and was never again subject to it."[101] David Mason followed Mill in an 1875 essay on literature, including Wordsworth's poetry. After quoting from the ode, Mason claimed of the poem: "These, and hundreds of other passages that might be quoted, show that Wordsworth possessed, in a very high degree indeed, the true primary quality of the poetimagination; a surcharge of personality or vital spirit, perpetually overflowing among the objects of the otherwise conditioned universe, and refashioning them according to its pleasure."[102]

After Mill, critics focused on the ode's status among Wordsworth's other poems. In July 1877, Edward Dowden, in an article for the Contemporary Review, discussed the Transcendental Movement and the nature of the Romantic poets. when referring to Wordsworth and the ode, he claimed: "Wordsworth in his later years lost, as he expresses it, courage, the spring-like hope and confidence which enables a man to advance joyously towards new discovery of truth. But the poet of 'Tintern Abbey' and the 'Ode on Intimations of Immortality' and the 'Prelude' is Wordsworth in his period of highest energy and imaginative light".[103] Matthew Arnold, in his preface to an 1879 edition of Wordsworth's poetry, explains that he was a great lover of the poems. However, he explains why he believed that the ode was not one of the best: "I have a warm admiration for Laodameia and for the great Ode; but if I am to tell the very truth, I find Laodameia not wholly free from something artificial, and the great Ode not wholly free from something declamatory."[104] His concern was over what he saw as the ideas expressed on childhood and maturity: "Even the 'intimations' of the famous Ode, those corner-stones of the supposed philosophic system of Wordsworth... has itself not the character of poetic truth of the best kind; it has no real solidity" "to say that universally this instinct is mighty in childhood, and tends to die away afterwards, is to say what is extremely doubtful... In general, we may say of these high instincts of early childhood... what Thucydides says of the early achievements of the Greek race:--'It is impossible to speak with certainty of what is so remove; but from all that we can really investigate, I should say that they were no very great things.'"[105]

The Victorian critic John Ruskin, towards the end of the 19th century, provided short analyses of various writers in his "Nature and Literature" essays collected in "Art and Life: a Ruskin Anthology". In speaking of Wordsworth, Ruskin claimed, "Wordsworth is simply a Westmoreland peasant, with considerably less shrewdness than most border Englishmen or Scotsmen inherit; and no sense of humor; but gifted... with vivid sense of natural beauty, and a pretty turn for reflection, not always acute, but, as far as they reach, medicinal to the fever of the restless and corrupted life around him."[106] After mocking the self-reflective nature of Wordsworth's poetry, he then declared that the poetry was "Tuneful nevertheless at heart, and of the heavenly choir, I gladly and frankly acknowledge him; and our English literature enriched with a new and singular virtue in the aerial purity and healthful rightness of his quiet song;but aerial onlynot ethereal; and lowly in its privacy of light". The ode, to Ruskin, becomes a means to deride Wordsworth's intellect and faith when he claims that Wordsworth was "content with intimations of immortality such as may be in skipping of lambs, and laughter of children-incurious to see in the hands the print of the nails."[106] Ruskin's claims were responded to by an article by Richard Hutton in the 7 August 1880 Spectator.[107] The article, "Mr. Ruskin on Wordsworth", stated, "We should hardly have expected Mr. Ruskina great master of irony though he beto lay his finger so unerringly as he does on the weak point of Wordsworth's sublime ode on the 'Intimations of Immortality,' when he speaks of himquite falsely, by the wayas 'content with intimations of immortality'".[108] The article continued with praise of Wordsworth and condemns Ruskin further: "But then, though he shows how little he understands the ode, in speaking of Wordsworth as content with such intimations, he undoubtedly does touch the weak chord in what, but for that weak chord, would be one of the greatest of all monuments of human genius... But any one to whom Wordsworth's great ode is the very core of that body of poetry which makes up the best part of his imaginative life, will be as much astonished to find Mr. Ruskin speaking of it so blindly and unmeaningly as he does".[108]

The ode was viewed positively by the end of the century. George Saintsbury, in his A Short History of English Literature (1898), declared the importance and greatness of the ode: "Perhaps twice only, in Tintern Abbey and in the Ode on the Intimations of Immortality, is the full, the perfect Wordsworth, with his half-pantheistic worship of nature, informed and chastened by an intense sense of human conduct, of reverence and almost of humbleness, displayed in the utmost poetic felicity. And these two are accordingly among the great poems of the world. No unfavorable criticism on either and there has been some, new and old, from persons in whom it is surprising, as well as from persons in whom it is natural has hurt them, though it may have hurt the critics. They are, if not in every smallest detail, yet as wholes, invulnerable and imperishable. They could not be better done."[109]

At the beginning of the 20th century, response to the ode by critics was mostly positive. Andrew Bradley declared in 1909 that "The Immortality Ode, like King Lear, is its author's greatest product, but not his best piece of work."[110] When speaking of Grasmere and Wordsworth, Elias Sneath wrote in 1912: "It witnessed the composition of a large number of poems, many of which may be regarded among the finest products of his imagination. Most of them have already been considered. However, one remains which, in the judgment of some critics, more than any other poem of the numerous creations of his genius, entitles him to a seat among the Immortals. This is the celebrated [ode]... It is, in some respects, one of his most important works, whether viewed from the stand point of mere art, or from that of poetic insight."[111] George Harper, following Sneath in 1916, described the poem in positive terms and said, "Its radiance comes and goes through a shimmering veil. Yet, when we look close, we find nothing unreal or unfinished. This beauty, though supernal, is not evanescent. It bides our return, and whoever comes to seek it as a little child will find it. The imagery, though changing at every turn, is fresh and simple. The language, though connected with thoughts so serious that they impart to it a classic dignity, is natural and for the most part plain.... Nevertheless, a peculiar glamour surrounds the poem. It is the supreme example of what I may venture to term the romance of philosophic thought."[112]

The 1930s contained criticism that praised the poem, but most critics found fault with particular aspects of the poem. F. R. Leavis, in his Revaluation (1936), argued that "Criticism of Stanza VIII ... has been permissible, even correct, since Coleridge's time. But the empty grandiosity apparent there is merely the local manifestation of a general strain, a general factitiousness. The Ode... belongs to the transition at its critical phase, and contains decided elements of the living."[113] He continued, "But these do not lessen the dissatisfaction that one feels with the movementthe movement that makes the piece an ode in the Grand Style; for, as one reads, it is in terms of the movement that the strain, the falsity, first asserts itself. The manipulations by which the change of mood are indicated have, by the end of the third stanza, produced an effect that, in protest, one described as rhythmic vulgarity..., and the strain revealed in technique has an obvious significance".[113] In 1939, Basil Willey argued that the poem was "greatly superior, as poetry, to its psychological counterpart in The Prelude" but also said that "the semi-Platonic machinery of pre-existence... seems intrusive, and foreign to Wordsworth" before concluding that the poem was the "final and definitive expression to the most poignant experience of his poetic life".[114]

Cleanth Brooks used the Ode: Intimation of Immortality as one of his key works to analyse in his 1947 work The Well Wrought Urn. His analysis broke down the ode as a poem disconnected from its biographical implications and focused on the paradoxes and ironies contained within the language. In introducing his analysis, he claimed that it "may be surmised from what has already been remarked, the 'Ode' for all its fine passages, is not entirely successful as a poem. Yet, we shall be able to make our best defense of it in proportion as we recognize and value its use of ambiguous symbol and paradoxical statement. Indeed, it might be maintained that, failing to do this, we shall miss much of its power as poetry and even some of its accuracy of statement."[115] After breaking down the use of paradox and irony in language, he analyses the statements about the childhood perception of glory in Stanza VI and argued, "This stanza, though not one of the celebrated stanzas of the poem, is one of the most finely ironical. Its structural significance too is of first importance, and has perhaps in the past been given too little weight."[116] After analysing more of the poem, Brooks points out that the lines in Stanza IX contains lines that "are great poetry. They are great poetry because ... the children are not terrified... The children exemplify the attitude toward eternity which the other philosopher, the mature philosopher, wins to with difficulty, if he wins to it at all."[117] In his conclusion about the poem, he argues, "The greatness of the 'Ode' lies in the fact that Wordsworth is about the poet's business here, and is not trying to inculcate anything. Instead, he is trying to dramatize the changing interrelations which determine the major imagery."[118] Following Brooks in 1949, C. M. Bowra stated, "There is no need to dispute the honour in which by common consent it [the ode] is held" but he adds "There are passages in the 'Immortal Ode' which have less than his usual command of rhythm and ability to make a line stand by itself... But these are unimportant. The whole has a capacious sweep, and the form suits the majestic subject... There are moments when we suspect Wordsworth of trying to say more than he means.[119] Similarly, George Mallarby also revealed some flaws in the poem in his 1950 analysis: "In spite of the doubtful philosophical truth of the doctrine of pre-existence borrowed from Platon, in spite of the curiously placed emphasis and an exuberance of feeling somewhat artificially introduced, in spite of the frustrating and unsatisfying conclusion, this poem will remain, so long as the English language remains, one of its chief and unquestionable glories. It lends itself, more than most English odes, to recitation in the grand manner."[120]

By the 1960s and 1970s, the reception of the poem was mixed but remained overall positive. Mary Moorman analysed the poem in 1965 with an emphasis on its biographical origins and Wordsworth's philosophy on the relationship between mankind and nature. When describing the beauty of the poem, she stated, "Wordsworth once spoke of the Ode as 'this famous, ambitious and occasionally magnificent poem'. Yet it is not so much its magnificence that impresses, as the sense of resplendent yet peaceful light in which it is bathedwhether it is the 'celestial light' and 'glory' of the first stanza, or the 'innocent Brightness of a new-born Day' of the last."[121] In 1967, Yvor Winters criticised the poem and claimed that "Wordsworth gives us bad oratory about his own clumsy emotions and a landscape that he has never fully realized."[122] Geoffrey Durrant, in his 1970 analysis of the critical reception of the ode, claimed, "it may be remarked that both the admirers of the Ode, and those who think less well of it, tend to agree that it is unrepresentative, and that its enthusiastic, Dionysian, and mystical vein sets it apart, either on a lonely summit or in a special limbo, from the rest of Wordsworth's work. And the praise that it has received is at times curiously equivocal."[123] In 1975, Richard Brantley, labelling the poem as the "great Ode", claimed that "Wordsworth's task of tracing spiritual maturity, his account of a grace quite as amazing and perhaps even as Christian as the experience recorded in the spiritual autobiography of his day, is therefore essentially completed".[1] He continued by using the ode as evidence that the "poetic record of his remaining life gives little evidence of temptations or errors as unsettling as the ones he faced and made in France."[1] Summarizing the way critics have approached the poem, John Beer claimed in 1978 that the poem "is commonly regarded as the greatest of his shorter works".[3] Additionally, Beer argued that the ode was the basis for the concepts found in Wordsworth's later poetry.[124]

Criticism of the ode during the 1980s ranged in emphasis on which aspects of the poem were most important, but critics were mostly positive regardless of their approach. In 1980, Hunter Davies analysed the period of time when Wordsworth worked on the ode and included it as one of the "scores of poems of unarguable genius",[125] and later declared the poem Wordsworth's "greatest ode".[2] Stephen Gill, in a study of the style of the 1802 poems, argued in 1989 that the poems were new and broad in range with the ode containing "impassioned sublimity".[126] He later compared the ode with Wordsworth's "Ode to Duty" to declare that "The Ode: Intimations, by contrast, rich in phrases that have entered the language and provided titles for other people's books, is Wordsworth's greatest achievement in rhythm and cadence. Together with Tintern Abbey it has always commanded attention as Wordsworth's strongest meditative poem and Wordsworth indicated his assessment of it by ensuring through the layout and printing of his volumes that the Ode stood apart."[127] In 1986, Marjorie Levinson searched for a political basis in many of Wordsworth's poems and argued that the ode, along with "Michael", Peele Castle, and Tintern Abbey, are "incontestably among the poet's greatest works".[128] Susan Wolfson, in the same year, claimed that "the force of the last lines arises from the way the language in which the poet expresses a resolution of grief at the same time renders a metaphor that implies that grief has not been resolved so much as repressed and buried. And this ambiguity involves another, for Wordsworth makes it impossible to decide whether the tension between resolution and repression... is his indirect confession of a failure to achieve transcendence or a knowing evasion of an imperative to do so."[129] After performing a Freudian-based analysis of the ode, William Galperin, in 1989, argues that "Criticism, in short, cannot accept responsibility for The Excursion's failings any more than it is likely to attribute the success of the 'Intimations Ode' to the satisfaction it offers in seeing a sense of entitlement, or self-worth, defended rather than challenged."[130]

1990s critics emphasised individual images within the poem along with Wordsworth's message being the source of the poem's power. In 1991, John Hayden updated Russell Noyes's 1971 biography of Wordsworth and began his analysis of the ode by claiming: "Wordsworth's great 'Ode on Immortality' is not easy to follow nor wholly clear. A basic difficulty of interpretation centers upon what the poet means by 'immortality.'"[131] However, he goes on to declare, "the majority of competent judges acclaim the 'Ode on Immortality' as Wordsworth's most splendid poem. In no other poem are poetic conditions so perfectly fulfilled. There is the right subject, the right imagery to express it, and the right meter and language for both."[132] Thomas McFarland, when emphasising the use of a river as a standard theme in Wordsworth's poems, stated in 1992: "Not only do Wordsworth's greatest statements--'Tintern Abbey', 'The Immortality Ode', 'The Ruined Cottage', 'Michael', the first two books of The Prelude--all overlie a streaming infrashape, but Wordsworth, like the other Romantics, seemed virtually hypnotized by the idea of running water."[133] After analysing the Wordsworth's incorporation of childhood memories into the ode, G. Kim Blank, in 1995, argued, "It is the recognition and finally the acceptance of his difficult feelings that stand behind and in the greatness and power of the Ode, both as a personal utterance and a universal statement. It is no accident that Wordsworth is here most eloquent. Becoming a whole person is the most powerful statement any of us can ever made. Wordsworth in the Ode here makes it for us."[134] In 1997, John Mahoney praised the various aspects of the poem while breaking down its rhythm and style. In particular, he emphasised the poem's full title as "of great importance for all who study the poem carefully" and claimed, "The final stanza is a powerful and peculiarly Wordsworthian valediction."[135]

In the 21st century, the poem was viewed as Wordsworth's best work. Adam Sisman, in 2007, claimed the poem as "one of [Wordsworth's] greatest works".[136] Following in 2008, Paul Fry argued, "Most readers agree that the Platonism of the Intimations Ode is foreign to Wordsworth, and express uneasiness that his most famous poem, the one he always accorded its special place in arranging his successive editions, is also so idiosyncratic."[137] He continued, "As Simplon and Snowdon also suggest, it was a matter of achieving heights (not the depth of 'Tintern Abbey'), and for that reason the metaphor comes easily when one speaks of the Intimations Ode as a high point in Wordsworth's career, to be highlighted in any new addition as a pinnacle of accomplishment, a poem of the transcendental imagination par excellence."[138]

1807 in poetry

More here:
Ode: Intimations of Immortality - Wikipedia

Immortality | CSI | FANDOM powered by Wikia

Immortality is a 2015 television movieand the series finale of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation.

The team is called together when a bomber terrifies Las Vegas. The CSI's have to work quickly to determine who is behind it all, and Lady Heather is their prime suspect.

When a suicide bomber detonates his vest on the floor of the Catherine Willows-owned Eclipse casino, the FBI Special Agent returns from Los Angeles in order to join the investigation. Gil Grissom, meanwhile, working to preserve sharks in international waters, is arrested for trespassing at the Port of San Diego, and D.B. Russell offers Sara Sidle the chance to supervise the local investigation into the bombing. Sidle, who is vying for the position of Director of the Las Vegas Crime Lab, is initially irked when Sheriff Conrad Ecklie inquires as to Grissom's location when Lady Heather Kessler is linked to the crime. Ecklie ensures Grissom is released from custody, and he and Willows, alongside Eclipse security officer Jim Brass, assist in locating the suspect.

As the team works to restore safety to the streets of Las Vegas, D.B. decides it is time for him to "head East" and pursue new challenges, while he places a plaque, dedicated to the memory of Julie Finlay, alongside his personal possessions. Catherine expresses an interest in leaving the FBI and working alongside her daughter Lindsey in the Las Vegas Crime Lab, noting that, should Sara reject the promotion she is going to be offered, Catherine will accept it in lieu of her former colleague. The series ends with the newly promoted Sara, upon hearing a recording of Grissom confessing his love for her, sailing from the Port of San Diego with Grissom.

View post:
Immortality | CSI | FANDOM powered by Wikia