Henry Bemis: Unofficial Saint of 2011

[Phox]

I guess what I was saying was, even a cute, gentle old man who just wants to read in his pathetic little existence is going to get shit on in life, even when things finally go his way.  And guess what?  That's ok.  Beause he's not getting shit on for any other purpose really than he just exists.  He's  not perfect, and if you knew him, perhaps he's just as shitty in his own way as those who ridiculed him for being him.

He had the "last laugh" in the end, and even that was a sad little whimper.  I think if he was a "worthier" opponent of all fate had in store for him, he'd be more of a hero.  But instead, he's, again, as in his former life without the bomb dropping, the anti-hero.  And we all can identify with that scenario.

Hate it, love it, but it's basically the same concept all around.  I'm not lockstep in favor of this, but I do think it is not a bad road to go--rejecting all extreme rounds and goals to the exclusion of all else because it's convenient or you're lazy or the other way's too painful but will in the longrun gain you your own salvation...

But I think I'm overthinking this and so backing out.    When do I ever do differently, anyway?

Damnit, I had a response all typed out to your last reply before my net went down and ate it, so I'm just going to reply to this.

I disagree. If he had been a "worthier" opponent of fate (which is a bullshit idea in the first place), then the story would have been completely different. The fact is, Henry Bemis was the only person in that episode who wasn't a complete and utter cock. He wanted solitude, yeah. He wanted to run and hide away in his books. Big fucking deal. Who here can honestly say that they don't have some form of escapism they practice? It's not that it was convenient, or lazy, or too painful, it's that he had no fucking release whatsoever. He broke. He had had enough of it, and didn't want to deal with it anymore. It wasn't a choice between dealing with life and hiding in books, but it was damn near a choice between hiding in books and suicide. And then, when it finally occurs that he doesn't have to deal with the stresses of life, and he can do what he likes for once, the universe in all it's assholish glory fucks him in the ass so hard it's not even funny. A guy who deserved what he got would be the guy from "A Kind of Stopwatch" (another favorite of mine). Henry Bemis, on the other hand, did no harm to anyone and he still ended up being nothing more than an unlucky sap who survived the apocalypse only to wind up dead anyway. You are overthinking in the assumption that Henry Bemis was more than what we see, that he had a layer of shittiness somewhere, that didn't come up. And i would say he is what we see, and nothing more.

[Jenne]

But he didn't deal with his stresses in life, Phox.  He escaped.  Time and again.  The world would have been  the same to him, decimated or not.

And it may be a bullshit notion, but that's literature for you.  There are those that are "set up" to be beaten down, and those who aren't. 

...  I totally lied about staying out of this thread.  But then, Phox seems to think this is like real life or something.

(again, this is all allegorical, though I see parallels in peoples' lives near and dear to me)

Henry Bemis did harm to himself.  That's it.  And so was left to himself and to his books, ineffectually.

The "be careful what you wish for" in life is just that scenario--that making the most of what you already have may NOT the worst proposition, and is often the best.  Or not. *shrug*

NOW I'll leave (since everything I'm saying is apparently bullshit ).

[Phox]

But he didn't deal with his stresses in life, Phox.  He escaped.  Time and again.  The world would have been  the same to him, decimated or not.

And it may be a bullshit notion, but that's literature for you.  There are those that are "set up" to be beaten down, and those who aren't. 

...  I totally lied about staying out of this thread.  But then, Phox seems to think this is like real life or something.

(again, this is all allegorical, though I see parallels in peoples' lives near and dear to me)

Henry Bemis did harm to himself.  That's it.  And so was left to himself and to his books, ineffectually.

The "be careful what you wish for" in life is just that scenario--that making the most of what you already have may NOT the worst proposition, and is often the best.  Or not. *shrug*

NOW I'll leave (since everything I'm saying is apparently bullshit ).

I am well aware that literature is full of bullshit ideas, but that doesn't mean that I like to see "worthy opponents of fate battling their destiny" all the time, especially in something like the Twilight Zone, where the stories were reflections, if a bit hyperbolic, of real life.

Henry Bemis did harm to himself? How?

The problem with "be careful what you wish for" is that it didn't serve a purpose in the story of a harried man who is only asking for a moment's respite, aside from a giant fuck you from the cosmic powers.

And again I liked the episode, I just happen to disagree with your interpretation. Also, i'm not saying that everything you're saying is bullshit either.

[Kai]

I love this thread, for the fact that it's an awesome discussion.

[Triple Zero]

Okay WTF is the deal that every story has to have a moral?

What is this nonsense about the writer having to be punished for having the audacity to write a story where people don't get what they deserve?

It's a fucking story, sometimes a story is great because it triggers that feeling of "aww he did not deserve that" in you.

This is bullshit does EVERY story on TV have to have a proper moral where people only get what they deserve?

Because god forbid it ever leaves you hanging with an unresolved feeling of "hey ... wait a minute that's not ... fair?"

Obviously a writer can ONLY write a story when they want to teach a point about morality, so this means the writer MUST have been trying to teach us uhhh "be careful what you wish for" and "bad things come to those who want to read", and if the writer believes that he should be thrown into a river.

What utter nonsense. Sometimes a story doesn't have a moral, sometimes it isn't spelled out and obvious like the latest romcom or Disney, sometimes, the only moral conclusion you can draw from a story is the hard one that you draw by yourself when you think "Hey, that's not FAIR, that's not RIGHT, he didn't deserve that!", and not the easiest route where the morally right thing must have been manifested somehow in God's the writer's mysterious ways.

I remember a children's show, a guy is walking around in the dunes, and comes at a stall where he buys a throw-away lighter. A bit later, he finds out the lighter doesn't work so he goes back. The salesman grabs the lighter from the guy, throws it as far away into the dunes as he can, "ITS A THROWAWAY LIGHTER!!!", and starts kicking the man's ass until he runs away while the salesman yells , "A THROWAWAY LIGHTER!! DONT LET ME EVER SEE YOU AGAIN!!!"

moral of the story? Dutch sunday morning TV shows are fucked up.

[MMIX]

Just for the hell of it :-

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/32633/32633-h/32633-h.htm


The original short story.

[Kai]

http://www.finebooksmagazine.com/fine_books_blog/2009/03/henry-bemis-hero-bibliomaniac-dead-at-97.phtml

[Kai]

Okay WTF is the deal that every story has to have a moral?

What is this nonsense about the writer having to be punished for having the audacity to write a story where people don't get what they deserve?

It's a fucking story, sometimes a story is great because it triggers that feeling of "aww he did not deserve that" in you.

This is bullshit does EVERY story on TV have to have a proper moral where people only get what they deserve?

Because god forbid it ever leaves you hanging with an unresolved feeling of "hey ... wait a minute that's not ... fair?"

Obviously a writer can ONLY write a story when they want to teach a point about morality, so this means the writer MUST have been trying to teach us uhhh "be careful what you wish for" and "bad things come to those who want to read", and if the writer believes that he should be thrown into a river.

What utter nonsense. Sometimes a story doesn't have a moral, sometimes it isn't spelled out and obvious like the latest romcom or Disney, sometimes, the only moral conclusion you can draw from a story is the hard one that you draw by yourself when you think "Hey, that's not FAIR, that's not RIGHT, he didn't deserve that!", and not the easiest route where the morally right thing must have been manifested somehow in God's the writer's mysterious ways.

I remember a children's show, a guy is walking around in the dunes, and comes at a stall where he buys a throw-away lighter. A bit later, he finds out the lighter doesn't work so he goes back. The salesman grabs the lighter from the guy, throws it as far away into the dunes as he can, "ITS A THROWAWAY LIGHTER!!!", and starts kicking the man's ass until he runs away while the salesman yells , "A THROWAWAY LIGHTER!! DONT LET ME EVER SEE YOU AGAIN!!!"

moral of the story? Dutch sunday morning TV shows are fucked up.

I agree, it doesn't have a moral. It's a story about the human condition, about solitude and introspection, its a social commentary on the need for quiet and aloneness in this world of constant distraction, interaction, and activity. The glasses breaking at the end was a way to get us to empathize that sense of loss to enjoy that solitude, but it wasn't moralizing. We wouldn't empathize if we also didn't wish for some peace and quiet with which to read for some time. It's an example of catharsis, and played out much like the greeks wrote tragedy, or Shakespeare for that matter.

[Jenne]

Meh.  Forget everything I said in this thread.

[Phox]

I'm just going to leave this right here: What Do You Mean It's Not Didactic?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Okay WTF is the deal that every story has to have a moral?

What is this nonsense about the writer having to be punished for having the audacity to write a story where people don't get what they deserve?

On The Twilight Zone?

It's what that show was all about.

[Kai]

Okay WTF is the deal that every story has to have a moral?

What is this nonsense about the writer having to be punished for having the audacity to write a story where people don't get what they deserve?

On The Twilight Zone?

It's what that show was all about.

I remember other episodes where that wasn't the case. I mean, what about the pilot, The Time Element, for example? Just because The Monsters are Due on Maple Street is an iconic example of people getting what they deserve, doesn't mean they were all like that. Does Gart Williams from A Stop at Willoughby get what he deserved? No, he ends up going insane and jumping off the train, dying, at a funeral home named Willoughby and Son. Or how about The Eye of the Beholder?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

But he didn't deal with his stresses in life, Phox.  He escaped.  Time and again.  The world would have been  the same to him, decimated or not.

And what's immoral about that?  There's nothing wrong with wanting solitude...You aren't hurting anyone else.  I strongly disagree that somehow wanting to be left alone is in itself an immoral or unethical thing.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm going to retract my earlier statement.

Bemis DID deserve what he got, because he didn't run his wife through the chipper, and then quit his job and sell drugs to his coworkers' kids.  And maybe put drano in the reservoir.

There is no room in The Kingdom for a person who won't I WILL KILL A MOTHERFUCKER when it becomes necessary.

[Phox]

I'm going to retract my earlier statement.

Bemis DID deserve what he got, because he didn't run his wife through the chipper, and then quit his job and sell drugs to his coworkers' kids.  And maybe put drano in the reservoir.

There is no room in The Kingdom for a person who won't I WILL KILL A MOTHERFUCKER when it becomes necessary.

I'm still of the opinion that he got fucked over for no good reason.