United College Collegiate - Tric Tics Yearbook (Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada)

Page 42 text:

1st Prize JANE AUSTEN AND MR. HARDY Whenever, in the course of the school year, I have had occasion to discuss the Prose course with some of my fellow male students, I have, almost invariably received the following state¬ ment, preserved in the vernacular: “Oh yeah. Mike, like that Pride and Prejudice is the dull¬ est. About as interesting and exciting as the Bobbsey Twins. But that Return of the Native . . . you’ll like that. I mean, this Hardy is a bit morbid and all, but there’s lots of action, like people drowning, and lots of poetic descrip¬ tions and oh yeah . . .” (At this point the speaker would usually interrupt himself to give me a little nudge with an elbow or wink with an eye, and then continue) “there’s that Eustacia Vye.” After being subjected to speeches like this a number of times I realized that Hardy’s novel was much more popular with these people be¬ cause it had a certain degree of physical action and also a quality which one can describe as a sort of tousled, wild-eyed romanticism coupled with a depressing, but always poetically-express¬ ed morbidity. These qualities seemed to rest in the minds of my colleagues as some of the most desirable of literary virtues. It never seemed to enter their minds that anyone would disagree with them on this point, but — oh well, I might as well come out and say it — I’ll take Pride and Prejudice any day. Concerning the aspect of comedy someone is always talking about how amusing Hardy’s rus¬ tic bumpkins are, but I prefer Miss Austen’s ability to bring out the inherent absurdity of the action of pompous snobs and fools, with a revealing quote or a wry turn of phrase. In¬ deed, Hardy reveals his basic humourlessness in the fact that he uses for objects of humour only the ignorant heath people, and never any of the more educated characters. As a result, although some of Eustacia’s wild romantic activities reach such a point of melodrama that one almost expects her to bound up to Wildeve with a rose clenched firmly between her teeth and propel him into a wild tango right there on the heath, Hardy sets them down instead with an almost reverent grimness. When Hardy treats his main characters as above humour, and for comic re¬ lief marches on his heath characters with their a: ignorance that he equates with humour, he shows f: a narrow sense of humour, and possibly a lack P of sensitivity. d Both Miss Austen’s and Hardy’s main char- acters are motivated by romantic impulses but Miss Austen, possibly because she’s a woman, has her characters behave much more sensibly, 1 indeed, more realistically than Hardy’s. And | when Lydia and Wickham hurry off into the woods of immorality Miss Austen does not in¬ culcate philosophical overtones, such as Fate, 1 the malignant First Cause, etc., as Hardy does, but makes it quite clear that it happened be¬ cause Lydia was an empty-headed and eager young thing, and Wickham was a callous lout, j A similar incident in Hardy’s novel is put forth as a result of the action of some malignant Fate against a woman whom Hardy says is a sort of a Goddess, a woman who should have been i destined for better things, who deserved a Great 1 Love, a woman capable of greatness. Yet one finds it difficult to discern how Hardy reached this conclusion. She has none of the noble im¬ pulses that, put into action, produce exceptional people. Indeed, the shallowness of her mind is shown when, after Yeobright has harmed his sight in a desperate effort to please her, she weeps despairing tears. But not in compassion for Yeobright, but rather because this misfor¬ tune ruins her idealistic dream of going to Paris. The only exceptional qualities Eustacia Vye seems to possess are an almost hypnotic physical appearance and a complete inability to adjust to her circumstances. Maybe Hardy thinks this rates a place for Eustacia in the Pantheon but I somehow admire Jane Austen’s good sense much more. She reduces Wickham and Lydia, who are different from Wildeve and Eustacia not in kind, but only in intensity, to their pro¬ per dimensions as a pair of rather silly, pathetic people. In these areas of comedy and romance, which are, after all, two very important parts of novel-writing, Jane Austen’s eye ranges more steady and true than Thomas Hardy’s. —M. Kostelnuk, 12-3 40 S’S £

Page 41 text:

Soft rays of Sun shone down through the trees, Bathing the Earth in gold, The Air was filled with the hum of bees, And the thousands of stories they told. Across the lake and through the trees, An alder grove could be seen, It was the home of the crowned king, And the graceful doe, his queen. There in that grove there lies a life, Heedless of the world’s long-lasting strife, He is a baby, a king to be, But he means even more than that to be. He is the gentleness of our world, As by his mother he lies curled, He is our past, our present and future Revealed to us in a living picture. To us he means but one more thing This awkward bundle soon to be king. His life is ours, unsteady, unsure, Ending only in bloodshed or war. He is God’s child like you or me, Tender and faithful, frightened and shy, We must remember as God’s Light beams down, This bundle of life is a jewel in his crown. —Gladys Finlay, 12-2. ODE TO A MATHEMATICIAN Those who do their Maths questions ahead Remove the tread from those who watched TV instead Because Miss Mills who gives us thrills Often shrills and gives us chills But those who get caught. Next time bring what they ought. —Anonymous.

Page 43 text:

2nd Prize WAR OR PEACE AND THE INDIVIDUAL ■Tf someone asked us whether we consider our- gmves guilty of war we would surely answer: “But of course not”. We probably would argue tiat as we are neither politicians who determine policy, nor industrialists who produce war imple¬ ments, nor subscribers to any totalitarian doc¬ trine (political or otherwise ), nor members of any other group which might profit from war¬ fare, it is absurd to suggest any guilt on our part for wars of the recent past or the imme¬ diate future. ■ Although those “interest groups” do exist on both sides of the “Iron Curtain and have existed almost as far back as history has been recorded, they can only be accused of furthering and ex¬ ploiting an existing trend — not of creating this trend. I Just as the grouping of individuals was neces¬ sary to form nations so the ignorant or malad¬ justed minds of individuals are necessary for the leaders of nations to sow the seeds which will bring about the willingness of the mass of individuals (called a nation) to go to war. Those leaders do not have to be at the government level, nor does the nation have to be a totali¬ tarian state. Neither do the seeds have to be those of direct hatred, but can be and in most cases are the more subtle ones of nationalism and patriotism. | Who will not submit willingly to sacrificial servitude (for what else is war service?), who will not go to kill or be killed when the “inspira¬ tions of nationalism and patriotism” make him feel righteous about it? ] But — does he have any right to feel right¬ eous? Let us take a closer look at the meaning of nationalism and patriotism. The dictionary ' lescribes nationalism as “devotion to one’s own lation” (W.) and patriotism as “love and ad- niration for one’s own country.” (L.) Both ■xplanations make it clear that this devotion ind love is directed towards the group of which ;he one who directs these feelings is a member, thus he directs them towards his extended self. ■ Now let us reduce these feelings from the level of nations to the level of individuals. Among a ; number of similar words three stand out as most resembling both nationalism and patriotism. They are egoism, narcissism, and selflove. Not that the words themselves look identical -— no not at all — but if we turn again to the dic¬ tionary explanations and interchange to words “self” or “one’s own person” with “one’s own country” any one of those dictionary explana¬ tions would describe any of the five words. To show this more clearly let us list all five below —they will speak for themselves. NATIONALISM— “devotion to one’s own nation.” (W.) EGOISM— “a passionate love of self, selfishness.” (L.) PATRIOTISM— “love” and “admiration for one’s own country.” (L. W.) NARCISSISM— “a morbid love and admiration of self.” (L.) SELFLOVE— “love for one’s own person and happiness.” (L.) Comparing these dictionary explanations it is plain that the words are not only similar but almost identical. But do we not regard egoism, narcissism and selflove as undesirable charac¬ teristics in an individual? How then can we re¬ gard the very same characteristics as desirable and good in a nation (a group of individuals) ? This reflection on the guilt of the individual in the question of WAR or PEACE is not meant to expound a doctrine of absolute pacifism nor is it an attempt to force the writer’s opinions on the reader. It is meant to provoke — yes, to provoke the thoughts of those who at some time or other really read their yearbook. That we think about this question (and many others) is important for two major reasons: firstly, we ARE individuals and as such will have to do both, take our stand on the issues of life and suffer the consequences of the stand taken by the mass of individuals (be that just our nation or the people of the world at large) ; secondly, we are students and thus many of us will to¬ morrow be leaders of nations in one way or an¬ other, in that case we will carry the responsi¬ bility that the seeds we sow will not be weeds. As conclusion let us consider a thought-pro¬ voking and perhaps controversial quotation on the subject from an anonymous mystic. “Creed of Peace” (A Practical Approach) am guilty of war when I proudly exercise my intelligence to disadvantage of my fellow man. I am guilty of ivar when I distort others’ opin¬ ions which differ from my own. I am guilty of war when I show disregard for the rights and properties of others. I am guilty of war when I covet what another has honestly acquired, I am guilty of ivar when I seek to maintain my superiority of position, by depriving others of their opportunity of advancement. am guilty of war if I imagine my kin and my¬ self to be a privileged people. I am guilty of war if I believe a heritage entitles me to monopolize resources of nature. I am guilty of war when I believe other people must think and live as I do. 41