A Day Late and a Dollar Short, but Even Still...

My computer has been down for a few days, thus my reason for the late response to the "Maher-Tebow Incident." Like Al Franken, Bill Maher was not a very funny "regular" comedian, and he is even less impressive as a political satirist; Politically Incorrect got the boot because it was the most PC show on television, and I will be honest in that I have never watched Real Time (Couldn't come up with a better title? Bryant Gumble's Real Sports all the inspiration you needed?). Maher's remarks about Tebow were not designed as an assault against the QB's theological beliefs. Oh, sure, on the surface that may be what we see, but we have only to look beyond this to find that Bill Maher was doing what he felt was the best recourse in keeping his name in the public domain. Like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton before him, Maher is a self-serving individual whose narcissism (read: God complex) compel him to take whatever action he deems necessary to call attention to himself at others' expense. As an athiest, I take considerable offense at what Maher has done, simply because there was no need for it. Why should Maher be offended if someone serves God, Jesus, Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu, or Odin? Does he not have enough on his plate that he has to keep stirring the pot of hate? As an athiest, I do not condemn anyone for their beliefs. Live and let live is enough for me, but apparently for Maher and those of his ilk, this just isn't good enough. Well, step back, Bill. It isn't always about you. If nothing else, just remember that half the people who claim some theological affiliation do not live the life; then again, that is none of our business, either.

Query...

I just finished two query letters for my series of children's books. Hopefully I'll get an expeditious response from at least one of them.

Duncan S. Jackson

Introduction to Humanities

Charles Ellis

10 November 2010

Prospectus for

Stephen King: Master Pontificator or Master Plagiarist

Stephen King has been renowned as the undisputed master of his craft for well over three

decades. When asked from where his ideas originate he jokingly answers, “Ithaca,” (New York).

It is my contention that King’s motivations come not from outside or even ethereal influences

but a land far more sinister in nature: The darkest recesses of his mind, where his inability to

process a series of original thought has exposed him for the pretender he truly is.

Some of the questions this paper will answer are, “When did this begin?” “Can this be said of all

his books?” and, “Why is this blatant disregard for the works of others allowed?” By the end of

my argument it should be easily discerned that opinion and truth are mere stumbling blocks on

the path to fact.

The importance of this project reflects the importance of King himself, who is quite literally

(lauded as) one of the greatest literary talents of the twentieth century. The tools implemented to

prove my argument will be such works as The Gods Hate Kansas (Joseph Millard, 1964),

television programs such as The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits, as well as works by and

interviews with King that will inevitably draw the conclusions of which have been bespoken.

Duncan S. Jackson

Mr. Charles Ellis

Humanities

November 26, 2010

Stephen King: Master Pontificator or Master Plagiarist?

Stephen King has been referred to as, “…the undisputed master of horror,” “…the scar-

iest man alive,” “…the greatest literary mind of the twentieth century,” and, “The bestselling

author of all-time,” by every periodical and newscaster of merit. King has published well over

one hundred twenty-five stories and screenplays in his career, and his works have been translated

into thirty-three different languages in over thirty-five separate countries across the world. With

better than three hundred million copies of his books having been published and literary awards

too numerous to mention, one must recognize the fact that Stephen King is indeed doing some-

thing right. Or is he? Evidence exists that suggests the only thing right that Mr. King has accom-

plished in his career is keeping his darkest secrets from the public. Quite simply, Stephen Edwin

King is a thief.

Can we justly accuse Stephen King of plagiarism? Against himself, perhaps, as is evi-

denced in his novels Roadwork (1981) and Desperation (1996). In Roadwork the main character,

George Dawes, states (on page 176), “…had wanted that (.22 single-shot rifle) for three years

and when I finally got it I couldn’t think of anything to do with it so I…shot a blue-jay. It hadn’t

been a clean kill. The jay sat in the snow surrounded by a pink bloodstain, its beak slowly open-

ing and closing.” while in Desperation a supporting character named Audrey Wyler states (pg.

437), “The year I was twelve my old man gave me a .22. The first thing I did was go outside our

house… and shoot a jay. When I went over to it, it was still alive…its beak was opening and

closing very slowly.” This is plagiarism plain and simple, but against one’s own self it is difficult

to point an accusatory finger.

With that being said, does this exonerate King from the charges laid before him? The

answer to that query is a resounding, “No!” as he has made a career of not writing classic stories

but rewriting those already in existence, and therein does his duplicity lie. Stephen King is guilty

of the crime of stealing other novelists’ ideas and passing them off as his own. This paper will

take a journey through the mind and career of Stephen King, Master of Horror, via his works,

and publicly oust him for the charlatan he truly is.

Will this be an all-inclusive dissection of King’s works? Of course not, as certain conces-

sions must be made in order to reach a higher truth. For example, books involving dual person-

alities, vampires, werewolves, ghosts, witches or witchery, curses (Gypsy and otherwise) and the

like will not be reviewed as most horror writers eventually spin their own yarns with characters

such as these. Thus, the following books may be omitted from the list: ‘Salem’s Lot (1975),

Cycle of the Werewolf (1983), The Dark Half (1989), Nightmares and Dreamscapes (1993), The

Green Mile (1996), Bag of Bones (1998), Blood and Smoke (1999), and Riding the Bullet (2000);

(and, as Richard Bachman) Thinner (1984).

Also not under review are those stories King crafted where the supernatural is absent

from the plot as it can be argued that the majority of them were taken not from another’s pub-

lished works but the daily news headlines themselves. These works include the four novellas

found within the pages of Different Seasons (1982) which are Rita Hayworth and Shawshank

Redemption, Apt Pupil, The Body and The Breathing Method; Gerald’s Game (1992), Dolores

Claiborne (1993), The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon (1999), Hearts in Atlantis (1999); (and, as

Richard Bachman) Rage (1977) and Roadwork (1981).

What we are left with is still a sizeable amount of literature from King (and his alter ego,

Bachman), be it in the format of stand-alone novelization or the serialized Dark Tower novels.

Just understand that at some point in his writing career King did begin to serialize all his works,

synthesizing them into a broad expanse of literature that somehow flowed into and out from his

Dark Tower series. “Everything must serve the beam,” King would say time and time again, and

if not with his own voice then with that of his characters’.

In Michael Collins 1985 book The Many Facets of Stephen King, Mr. Collins references

an interview King was engaged in concerning his 1964 novella The Star Invaders. In this inter-

view (pg. 2) King admitted he had modeled his story after the 1956 film “Earth vs. The Flying

Saucers.”

With Carrie (1974) King states in a 1998 interview with George Beahm that this novel

was a possible future of “Rosemary’s Baby” (Ira Levin, 1967). Changing the sex of the child

from male to female, transforming the mother into a religious zealot due to her traumatic exper-

iences, but perhaps most compelling comes not from the book but the film adaptation in which

we see at the end scene Carrie (in dream sequence) rising from the bowels of Hell to claim her

next victim just as Rosemary’s baby was to rule at Satan’s side before ascending to rule over the

earth.

Excerpt from The Shining (pg. 129, 1977): “The hotel has a personality in its own right,

and acts as a psychic lens: it manipulates the living and the dead for its own purposes, and mag-

nifies the psychic powers of any living people who reside there and makes them more sensitive

to their urgings.” “Ten years prior King had read (Ray) Bradbury’s The Veldt (originally

published as The World the Children Made, September 20, 1950 issue of Saturday Evening Post)

and was inspired to someday write a story about a person whose dreams would become real.”

Stephen King: The Art of Darkness Winter, Douglas E. (1984). Of The Veldt (pg. 2): “…and as

they stand in the center of the room, the nursery’s previously blank walls come to life. The

machine works through telepathy. It reads a person’s thoughts and projects them onto the walls

to create an environment.”

The Stand (1978) may well be considered one of King’s greatest literary achievements,

but even here it is evident that “The Master” once again took “his” idea from pre-existing text,

this particular piece belonging to Richard Matheson in the form of I Am Legend (1954).

When The Dead Zone (1979) was first released it was thought by many to be a privately

acknowledged tribute to renowned psychic Peter Hurkos, whom King both admired and believed

in strongly. This was later substantiated by King on his website StephenKing.com. The “feats”

that The Dead Zone’s lead character Johnny Smith executed in the film are to mirror those

purportedly performed by Hurkos.

The release of Firestarter (1980) gave birth to new terminology within the Stephen King

universe that was soon to spill over and become accepted by horror, fantasy, and science fiction

enthusiasts alike. The word was “Pyrokenesis,” which in layman’s terms is defined as the power

to create and/or control fire. The terminology was new, yes, but too bad the idea wasn’t. On the

May 5, 1959 edition of “Alcoa Presents: One Step Beyond” (Season one, Episode 16: “The

Burning Girl”) the program, which, through re-enactments, portrayed documented cases of the

mysterious and unexplained, reviewed a case in which a young lady psychically produced fires

where none should issue forth. This is yet another example of King crafting a story around a pre-

existing piece of work.

Have you ever asked yourself, “What if Travis Coates had waited a few more days before

killing Old Yeller?” Stephen King asked that very question, which ultimately led to the publica-

tion of his novel Cujo (1981). The comparison is too strongly drawn for this to not be a blatant

disregard for Fred Gipson’s 1956 classic.

The 1977 release of Elliot Silverstein’s film “The Car” filled many a person’s heart with

fear over the possibility that an inanimate object such as a vehicle could not just become pos-

sessed but actually hunt down and kill someone. This story was written with several accounts of

haunted ships and even James Dean’s Porsche 550 Spyder being cursed or possessed in mind.

That would prove to be all the inspiration King would need to craft Christine (1983). Whether

the car is haunted or possessed, killing of its own will or through the psychic will of its owner,

Christine (and through her Stephen King) owes the success of this story to her forbears. And for

those who may think lightning cannot strike twice King treats us to yet another story of vehicular

horrors with From a Buick 8 (2002). For the most part the premise is the same but King has

added a new element to the mix…he is content on tying every single piece of work with his

name on it to his Dark Tower series, which will be covered later.

Pet Semetary (1983) served a monumental purpose when first released: It reminded us

that the truly acknowledged masters of their (literary) craft relied more on the unspoken truths

the premise of artistic license allows us than the blatantly obvious, etched over and again in our

minds by those whose skills are lacking. My case in point is W. W. Jacobs’ 1902 classic short

story The Monkey’s Paw. We have here a story of one being careful of wishing for that which

they desire most, for the repercussions of selfishness, regardless how noble the intention,

leave us with considerably less than we initially began. That pretty much sums up Pet Semetary,

right down to bringing the son back to life.

    

The Talisman (1984) and its sequel, Black House (2001) are both reminiscent of such

classical literary pieces as Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (Lewis Carroll, 1865) and

Chronicles of Narnia (C.S. Lewis, 1949, itself a pilfered idea) in that they tell the story of a child

(initially, with The Talisman and later with Black House as an adult) who slips into a magical,

new world unlike any he has ever experienced. He has no “Queen of Hearts” shouting, “Off with

his head!” at every turn but there is an evil mage, Morgan of Orris, who wishes for nothing more

than to rid both worlds of Jack, the main character.

With It (1986) Stephen King borrowed elements from previous personal novelizations

The Body, (1982) as well as that of Ray Bradbury’s Something Wicked This Way Comes (1962)

in a sort of homage that serves little else but to lend yet more credence to the charges against

him.

The Eyes of the Dragon (1987) holds the same plotline from Alexandre Dumas’ The Man

in the Iron Mask (c. 1840) in that it involves the unseating of an established king that his evil

brother may take his place. Though set in a time earlier than that of Dumas’ classic (one must

assume it is King’s feeble attempt to lend credibility to the pre-dating of the tale) he falls short in

delivering to us that which flowed freely from Dumas’ pen.

With Misery (1987) King once again presents to us yet another manic writer dealing with

familial difficulties and unresolved issues stemming from one dysfunction or another. This

seems to be an ongoing theme of his when his stories center on a lead character who happens to

be an author. Can it be that King, through his words, is reaching out to us or perhaps even

inviting us to take a closer look at his (current) psychosis? That is definitely worth musing over

as we draw the similarity between this story and that of “My Ellen,” the season four, episode

three contribution from “Little House on the Prairie” (Original air date September 26, 1977).

With The Tommyknockers (preface, 1988) the only original thought King could hope to

associate himself with is the second stanza to the children’s rhyme, “The Tommyknockers.” “Late

last night and the night before, Tommyknockers, Tommyknockers knocking at the door. (From

King…) I want to go out, don’t know if I can ’Cause I’m so afraid of the Tommyknocker man.”

From there the novel is one stolen thought after another in which King has very literally

rewritten the Joseph Millard 1964 classic The Gods Hate Kansas, right down to the “hero” who

is unaffected by the alien E.S.P. by virtue of the steel plate in his head. Other critics have drawn

the parallel from The Tommyknockers to such works as The Colour Out of Space by H.P.

Lovecraft (1927), The Puppet Masters by Robert A. Heinlein (1951) and The Big Front Yard by

Richard Simak (1959). Writer and critic Kim Newman states that “…King more or less rewrote

(Quartermass and the Pit), a 1950’s BBC television science-fiction serial involving the

excavation of a long-buried alien spacecraft, and the growing influence of the dormant machine

on surrounding human beings.” The Times, British newspaper at time of critique on King’s

newly-released The Tommyknockers (18 Jan. 2006).

Needful Things (1991) was billed by King as, “The last Castle Rock story.” It was, how-

ever, not King’s last foray into the thievery and rewriting of the works of great authors before

him. In this particular book King borrows all the key elements that made the German writer

Wolfgang Goethe’s Faust (c. 1587) a masterpiece of literature and updated it to reflect a more

modern vision. If King’s idea is to push his “Constant Readers” to embrace the classics upon

which so many of his novels are based then he has given them plenty of motivation.

Rose Madder (1995) pulls its plotline from Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass

(1871) but more importantly we find that even the legends of mythology are not safe as lead

character Rosie must navigate a labyrinth and rescue a baby from the wretched clutches of a

Minotaur a la Thesius. This is not the first time King has used mythological beings in his novels.

In Insomnia (1995) King has enlisted the aid of Clotho, Lachesis and Atropos—The Three

Fates—in the peddling of his wares.

With the release of Storm of the Century (1999) we find the actual screenplay King used

for the hit made-for-television movie of the same name. King uses the daemonic entity from

Biblical times Legion as the story’s antithesis but credits him as well in reference to The Lost

Colony of Roanoke which was founded in 1587 and discovered missing in 1590. Croatoan.

The Plant (2000) is a not-as-yet completed story by King that seems to have all the ele-

ments of the 1960 motion picture Little Shop of Horrors. Until this project has been completed

little else can be said..

Dreamcatcher (2000) derives its main driving force from the H. G. Wells classic War of

the Worlds (1898). It can also be associated with any alien/science fiction stories to come before

it because by this time there is nothing else original in that particular genre.

As Richard Bachman, King wrote seven books, three of which did not make the review

list as the criteria for inclusion was lacking. Of the four remaining novels, The Long Walk (1979)

and The Running Man (1982) both fit into the category of “Game: Hunting: Human Life.” These

concepts were neither new nor original when King composed his stories around them. The Most

Dangerous Game (also published as The Hounds of Zaroff), Gavin Lyall (1924) and Seventh

Victim by Robert Sheckley (1953) predate the earliest of Bachman’s novels by fifty-five years

and twenty-six years respectively. Moving next to The Regulators (1995) we find not originally a

novel but a screenplay that King had discussed with the late Sam Peckinpah. King rewrote the

screenplay but Peckinpah died before reading it so King rewrote the original as a novel, rewrote

the treatment as Desperation (1995) and explained that the stories were “…of similar events

transpiring in mirrored universes (StephenKing.com).” And of the final Bachman book we have

Blaze (2007). This story has all the elements one could expect from a John Steinbeck novel

because underneath the ghostly apparitions and overly-clichéd “falling in love with the victim”

sub-plot this is a John Steinbeck novel; Of Mice and Men (1937) to be more precise.

The Dark Tower series (1982-2004) is a single story told through the course of seven

connected novels over a twenty-two year period. It has been substantiated by King himself that

the reason it took such a great expanse of time to complete his Magnus Opus is he was

compelled to write other stories first, and on the surface the reason is legitimized through the

connections he has made with those other novels to his Dark Tower series. To what degree, one

might ask? To the degree of twenty-two of his novels having some direct or indirect link to The

Dark Tower, those being: ‘Salem’s Lot, The Stand, The Talisman, Crouch End, The Mist, It, The

Eyes of the Dragon, Insomnia, Rose Madder, Desperation, The Regulators, Bag of Bones, Hearts

in Atlantis, Black House, Everything’s Eventual, From a Buick 8, UR, The House on Value

Street, Cell, The Dead Zone, The Shining and Pet Sematary. But let this not be the criteria upon

which King is judged, for there are far more sinister plots at work here.

For instance, King freely admits within the foreword of the first of the Dark Tower

books, The Gunslinger that the idea for the story originally came from Robert Browning’s 1855

epic poem Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came. One familiar with Book One is immediately

impressed upon by the ravaging of the poem by King to fill a few paltry pages within the book,

but more so by King’s continued confessions. The lead character, Roland Deschain, is the

archetypal gunslinger having been modeled after Clint Eastwood’s “Man with no name” persona

from his stint under Sergio Leone and the “spaghetti western.” There is also the appearance of

the story’s main antagonist, Randall Flagg, whom King has positioned in his novels as a

recurring character throughout time. His legacy spans from the earliest days of King’s worlds as

is depicted in Eyes of the Dragon and continues through such future events as portrayed in The

Stand. Flagg will assume different identities from time to time but his mere presence

substantiates the meshing of king’s works into a single entity.

The series is chock-full of every type of villain imaginable, ranging from vampires, both

physical and psychological, to mutants, zombies, sorcerers and large insects just to name a few,

but what is perhaps most prevalent is the use by King of his “creation” of the Taheen, a race of

creatures that appear to carry both animal and human DNA much like the Humanimals from H.

G. Wells’ 1896 classic The Island of Dr. Moreau.

As if that was not enough, King injects himself into his own story portraying…himself. It

is his job, at the behest of the lead characters, to continue writing the adventures the gunslingers

are living. To make matters worse King uses the accident that nearly killed him on June 20, 1999

to kill off one of the story’s lead characters. It should not be too difficult to see that a person who

has no talent must resort to stealing the works of others to enable themselves of their promised

fifteen minutes of fame but King has taken it to a whole other level; by writing himself into his

novel he has acknowledged of himself to the public that his talent is nonexistent.

The initial inclination was to include all of King’s stories that have seen publication in

this paper but in the end there are just too many to categorize and cross-reference, especially

when it comes to his books of collected works, of which there are in excess of ten. That being

said, the sample provided has served its purpose well; Stephen Edwin King has made a living out

of mocking the very classics from which true appreciation of literature can be derived.

Can his actions be explained away by a plea of ignorance? I think not. King is an intelli-

gent man with extensive training in the classics, as his literary degree most assuredly attests. Will

the citation that his actions were an homage to the respective authors suffice insomuch as finally

giving due credit for his success? No such public offering has been made as of this writing, so it

must be ascertained that he is either unwilling or there is the off chance that he was given

permission by the author before embarking on his journey to craft the particular story. In either

case King has diminished not only himself and his work but the works of the other writers as

well by not giving public recognition. And finally, why have King’s actions been allowed to

continue for as long as they have? The answer to that query is simple: Money. Every editor,

director, producer, moviegoer and “Constant Reader” has at one time or other seen similarities

between a Stephen King piece and those of another writer, but so engrossed in the feeling of

“now” have they become that they could not care what repercussions might follow. The public

created a monster by not stopping King when it had the opportunity, and now the inmate is

running the asylum. How King will feel when in the not-too-distant future a writer comes along

and shows the same disregard for his (King’s) works that he has shown others’ is anyone’s

guess, but I am of the mind that he will not be as free in giving as he has been in taking.

Works Cited

Alcoa Presents:        One Step Beyond: The Burning Girl Season 1, Episode 16 (May 5, 1959)

Bachman, Richard   The Long Walk (1979), The Running Man (1982), The Regulators (1996),

                                 Blaze (2007)

Bradbury, Ray         Something Wicked This Way Comes (1962), The World the Children Made

                                (The Veldt): Saturday Evening Post (September 20, 1950)

Browning, Robert   Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came (1855)

Carroll, Lewis          Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1865) Through the Looking Glass

                                 (1871)

Collins, Michael      The Many Facets of Stephen King (1985)

Dumas, Alexandre   The Man in the Iron Mask (c. 1840)

Gipson, Fred           Old Yeller (1965)

Goethe, Wolfgang   Faust (c. 1587)

Griffith, Charles B.  Little Shop of Horrors (1960)

Heinlein, Robert     The Puppet Masters (1951)

Jacobs, W. W.         The Monkey’s Paw (1902)

King, Stephen E.     The Star Invaders (1964), Carrie (1974), The Shining (1977), The Stand

                                (1978), The Dead Zone (1979), Firestarter (1980), Cujo (1981), The Dark

                                Tower: Book I: The Gunslinger, Christine (1983), Pet Sematary (1983), The

                               Talisman (1984), It (1986), The Eyes of the Dragon (1987), The Dark Tower:

                                Book II: The Drawing of the Three (1987), Misery (1987), The Tommy-

                                knockers (1988), Needful Things (1991), The Dark Tower: Book III: The

                               Wastelands (1991), Insomnia (1995), Rose Madder (1995), Desperation

                               (1996), The Dark Tower: Book IV: Wizard and Glass (1997), Storm of the

                               Century (1999), The Plant (2000), Dreamcatcher (2000), Black House (2001),

                               From A Buick 8 (2002), The Dark Tower: Book V: Wolves of the Calla

                               (2003), The Dark Tower: Book VI: Song of Susannah ((2004), The Dark

                               Tower: Book VII: The Dark Tower (2004)

Kneale, Nigel         “Quartermass and the Pit” BBC television series (1958)

Levin, Ira               “Rosemary’s Baby” (1967)

Lewis, C.S.             Chronicles of Narnia (1949)

Lovecraft, H.P.       The Colour Out of Space (1927)

Lyall, Gavin            The Hounds of Zaroff (The Most Dangerous Game) (1924)

Matheson, Richard  I am Legend (1954)

Millard, Joseph        The Gods Hate Kansas (1964)

Newman, Kim         The Times (BBC book critic) (1988)

Sheckley, Robert     Seventh Victim (1953)

Silverstein, Elliot    “The Car” (1977)

Simak, Richard         The Big Front Yard (1959)

Steinbeck, John        Of Mice and Men (1937)

Wells, H. G.              The Island of Dr. Moreau (1896), War of the Worlds (1898)

Wilder, Laura Ingalls “Little House on the Prairie” Season 4, Episode 3 “My Ellen”

Winter, Douglas E.   Stephen King: The Art of Darkness (1984)

Tonight's Ceremonial Speech

Ms. Whitley, Honored Guests, and fellow students,

            The task of finding someone or something for which I am thankful in and of itself was

not difficult; the mere fact that I knew I would be standing before you this evening at Wiregrass Georgia

Technical College was all the motivation I needed. I often cite a quote from the great poet Maya

Angelou, who said, “Not having is no reason for not getting.” With this thought in mind, my

dream to enroll in college—even though it came twenty-seven years after graduating high school

—intimidated me, if for no other reason than wondering where I would get the money with

which to continue my education. In that regard I, Duncan Scott Jackson, would like to thank the

state of Georgia for literally funding my dream. The availability of the Hope and Pell grants ensure that I will

attain a college education.

            I would also like to thank Wiregrass Georgia Technical College for providing an envi-

ronment in which I can flourish; the student body is friendly and positive, the support staff has

been and continues to be knowledgeable and helpful in every way imaginable, and the instructors

have been both competent and caring. While time will not allow me to single out every instructor

who has influenced me over the past year, I would like to call particular attention to Nancy Els-

berry and Michael Young, both of whom have instilled within me a greater reason for critical

thinking; but more importantly, on this night, I would like to thank my Public Speaking instruct-

tor, Ms. Christine Whitley.

            Would you believe that just two weeks into this semester I had the audacity to tell her

that she had very little to teach me? In my ignorance and arrogance I reduced her credibility as

an accomplished instructor to nothing (turn and face her), and for that I am truly sorry. You have

shown me that there is more to public speaking than just speaking in public, and this experience

has been a reminder that at all times we should remain humble. I am humbled before you now, and

appreciate the fact that you did not give up on me when it seemed I was so ready to give up on you.

            (Turn back to audience) As I bring this speech to a close I would like to ask one favor

from each of you: Do not applaud me for having the courage to stand before you this evening. Do not

applaud the speech you have just heard; instead applaud the state, the institution, and the instructors who

have made this speech possible. Thank you.

Ceremonial Speech

Ms. Whitley, Honored Guests, and fellow students,

            The task of finding someone or something for which I am thankful in and of itself was

not difficult; the mere fact that I knew I would be standing before you at Wiregrass Georgia

Technical College was all the motivation I needed. I often cite a quote from the great poet Maya

Angelou, who said, “Not having is no reason for not getting.” With this thought in mind, my

dream to enroll in college—even though it came twenty-seven years after graduating high school

—intimidated me, if for no other reason than wondering where I would get the money with

which to continue my education. In that regard I, Duncan Scott Jackson, would like to thank the

state of Georgia for literally funding my dream.

            I would also like to thank Wiregrass Georgia Technical College for providing an envi-

ronment in which I can flourish; the student body is friendly and positive, the support staff has

been and continues to be knowledgeable and helpful in every way imaginable, and the instructors

have been both competent and caring. While time will not allow me to single out every instructor

who has influenced me over the past year, I would like to call particular attention to Nancy Els-

berry and Michael Young, both of whom have instilled within me a greater reason for critical

thinking; but more importantly, on this night, I would like to thank my Public Speaking instruct-

tor, Ms. Christine Whitley.

            Would you believe that just two weeks into this semester I had the audacity to tell her

that she had very little to teach me? In my ignorance and arrogance I reduced her credibility as

an accomplished instructor to nothing (turn and face her), and for that I am truly sorry. You have

shown me that there is more to public speaking than just speaking in public, and this experience

has been a reminder that at all times we should remain humble.

            (Turn back to audience) As I bring this speech to a close I would like to ask one favor

from each of you: Do not applaud the speech you have just heard; instead applaud the state, the

school, and the instructors who made this speech possible. Thank you.

The Walking Dead

Mid-season finale (whatever that's supposed to mean) tonight at 9:00 on AMC.

Rasslin'

Anyone who knows me knows I am a fan of professional wrestling...Well, not so much now as I was of the glory days of Championship Wrestling from Florida, Georgia Championship Wrestling, Mid-South Wrestling, and Mid-Atlantic Wrestling, all of which were under the banner of the NWA. I never really liked AWA or WWF as their wrestlers and commentators seemed one-dimensional, unlike Gordon Solie, who could call a match with the greatest of ease. I'm not here to talk about commentators (for surely Jim Ross could give Gordon a run for the money in today's market), but wrestlers; more specifically, tag-teams. Who were the greatest tag-teams of all time? There has been much debate over this throughout the history of the sport (or is sports entertainment the more appropriate term?), but no difinitive answer has ever been given...UNTIL NOW!!!!! This is my list of the greatest tag-teams ever, and while you may recognize some names and not others, or doubt the importance I have placed on one particular team over another, just keep in mind that this is my personal list. Yours may vary, and you are free to post your own. That being said, and without further adieu, I present to you The Ten Greatest Tag-Teams of All-Time.

10. Abdullah the Butcher and Maniac Mark Lewin. They weren't together long, but they devastated everyone they ever wrestled against.

9. Robert Fuller and Jimmy Golden. WHO? WHAT? Yup. Mid-South's underdogs who always found a way to pull out victories against such teams as Jos LeDuc and Mongolian Stomper, The Von Erichs, and Abdullah the Butcher and Iceman King Parsons to name just a few. They deserve a place here, if for no other reason than Robert Fuller was Col. Parker, who, in his later years, managed Harlem Heat.

8. Degeneration X. Of course they are going to appear here, just not as close to #1 as some may like. They were the precursors to the WWF's "Attitude" era, and they performed in that regard very well.

7. Mr. Wrestling and Mr. Wrestling II. This one may just be purely for nostalgia's sake, and if it is then so be it. They rocked!

6. The Rock and Roll Express. High-flying, exciting to watch, tough as a two-dollar steak. These guys were 100% pure adrenalin.

5. The Steiner Brothers. They were collegiate wrestlers before "going pro," which meant they brought to the table the skills that should have made them life-long champions.

4. Arn Anderson and Tully Blanchard. They were the core tag-team of the Four Horsemen, and it wasn't brag because they could back it up.

3. Ole and Gene Anderson. The Minnesota Wrecking Crew. The well-oiled machine. How many people did they cripple along the way?

2. Mike Graham and Steve Keirn. As far as in-ring presence, these guys had it all: pure wrestling ability, likability, and the fact that on any given night they possessed the tools to defeat every tag-team out there.

1. Every knee must bow and every tongue confess that The Hawk and The Animal, The Road Warriors, be placed here, and I'm not talking about the crappy WWF version, but the team that dominated NWA and WCW.

So there you have it. I'm sure teams such as the Von Erichs, Harlem Heat, the Briscos, Paul Orndorf and Jimmy Snuka, the Valiants, Shock Troops, Assassins, Spoilers, and others could have found a place in the top thirty, but that is where they belong. Oh, and what about the Dudleys? What about them? As for the Superpowers (Dusty Rhodes and Nikita Koloff), the Megapowers (Hulk Hogan and Randy Savage), NWO (Kevin Nash and Scott Hall) and the Sheepherders (The Kiwi Sheepherders were better by far), look for them in the top 30 as well.

G or J?

When did the G in Ghengis Kahn's name go from a hard "G" to a soft "J", to be pronounces Jhengis Kahn?

Is Self-Justification and Self-Rationalization Equal To Truth?

The question, as it stands, is legitimate if for no other reason than truth is abstract. Truth is not complete facts, just the facts as we know them, or rather, choose to believe them. Yes, I am getting to a point here, so bear with me. A completely heterosexual male may meet and become attracted to any given female on any given day. If the male likes her well enough, he will pursue a relationship with her. If, during the course of their courtship, the female discloses she is actually a hermaphrodite, and the male accepts this of her, is their continued romance equivalent to a homosexual relationship? Obviously, the female has no control over how she was born, and the fact that she has lived her life as a female states how she identifies herself in terms of gender. The male, however...His acceptance of the female is based solely on how he perceives her--which is how she perceives herself--thus he is not categorized as homosexual. If the female's penis raises in the male a "Bi-curious" feeling, would exploring that necessarily make him homosexual? Is he, in fact, committing a homosexual act by simple virtue of the fact that he wishes to sate his sexual curiosity of the penis? This is touch and go in that even though the penis is on the female, it is still a penis; yet hermaphrodites do not have a clitoris. Why is this? What, exactly, is a clitoris? It is the remnant of a penis. With that fact exposed, are all males who perform oral sex on a female secretely fulfilling a desire to perform oral sex on a male, or phallys of any kind? Does the fact that one may prefer a larger clitoris to one more miniscule prove that individual has tendencies greater than another? My point is, we call a clitoris a clitoris and a penis a penis when the fact is they are one in the same. So, is the male who wishes to perform oral sex on the hermaphrodite's penis committing a homosexual act? Is he fulfilling a homoerotic fantasy by doing so? Does he justify this by classifying things as I have just stated? Self-rationalization and self-justification are the keys to answering this. His truth may say no, and someone else's may say yes. Take this a step further. Same scenario: Man meets a wonderful woman, yet this woman discloses she is M2F Pre-op Transgender. The man decides he will continue dating her anyway. If she chooses to live her life as a woman, and he chooses to accept her as a woman, is she not a woman? During sex, is the clitoris/penis issue really an issue? Yes, she does not have a vagina, but she has what is referred to as a penis and can be referred to as an extremely large clitoris. Does the mindset of the male play a factor in this, does HIS truth mean anything, or do we judge him by what society says should and shouldn't be? The bottom line is this: We live in a world where love...Real, true, honest acceptance of two people..is a rare thing. Allow those who find happiness to keep their happiness. Our truths matter so very little where other's lives are concerned.

Analysis of "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?"

Duncan S. Jackson

English 2130

Mr. Ruddle

T/R 3:30p-4:45p

Analysis of “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?”

Joyce Carol Oates’ “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” appears in Chapter

5 of Legacies (51-61) under the heading “Crossing the Genres: Identity and the Body.”  While a

perfunctory reading of the story may leave some readers satisfied with the notion that we have

before us the tale of a promiscuous young woman who, much like her teen-aged friends (and all

teens for that matter who believe they will live forever), throws caution to the wind and eventual-

ly becomes the target of a crazed sex offender and his silent but willing partner, a more circums-

pect perusal reveals the overwhelming depth and outright genius employed in bringing to life not

just a story with real, identifiable characters, but a timeless piece that could be introduced in this

day and still retain its symbolic significance. While this offering by Ms. Oates quite literally

draws upon facts detailed from Charles Schmid’s murder of Alleen Rowe, her story is steeped in

Biblical lore as well, from the title itself right down to subtext, and what she has provided us

with is nothing short of Satan attempting to beguile the lead character, Connie, with no promise

that she will make it safely through the ordeal.

Connie is no angel; let’s establish that from the beginning. At 15 she is a vain, promis-

cuous, lying teen-ager who has wished her mother dead (51), and it is that very same mother who

is not shy about pointing out that “…her (daughter’s) mind was all filled with trashy daydreams”

(51).  Connie knows what she wants, and has no qualms (or apparent matters of conscience)

when it comes to attaining these things, which translates into a blatant worship of worldly plea-

sures while exercising a complete and utter disregard for spiritual fulfillment which, as Biblical

scholars and theologians both will agree, is an invitation to allow Satan to be the predominate

influence in one’s life.

     Ms. Oates has made several very real references to the true identity of Arnold Friend, both as

Schmid and as Satan. His name itself—Arnold Friend—can be deciphered in many ways: Are no

friend; An old friend; An old fiend just to name a few, but is it coincidence that the number of

letters in first and last name add up to 6 and 6? Ms. Oates plays around with other forms of sym-

bolism in the story as well as offering flagrant hints as to Arnold’s true identity.  First, the car:  It

is referred to as a jalopy (52) painted gold.  “Jalopy” is defined as “Old and dilapidated,” (962)

and dilapidated is defined as “Having fallen into a state of disrepair,” (522). Satan is old, and

theologians could attest that, since his departure from Heaven, he has fallen into a state of disre-

pair as he was once the most beautiful of all angels. The gold color of the car represents his abili-

ty to maintain some semblance of beauty, but it can also be viewed as his ability to manipulate

and attract those who desire worldly possessions, and has gold not been the most precious, most

sought-after “worldly possession” throughout history?

On the car, in black, tar-like letters, is Arnold’s name. The color black has always been

representative of evil, and the fact that it is “tar-like” may represent decay or rot.  The numbers,

33, 19, and 17, can be looked at in two ways. First, 33 (3+3=6), then 19, 17 (19+17=36, square

root of being 6, thus 6x6), so what we are left with is 666, the number of the beast. Also, if one

were to count backwards from the last book of the Old Testament, Judges would be the 33^rd book

of the Bible (counting backwards is symbolic of Satan being the opposite of God), and Judges

19:17 reads, “And when he had lifted up his eyes, he saw a wayfaring man in the street of the

city: and the old man said, Whither goest thou? and whence comest thou?” (396). This is a direct

link to the title of the story.

“Man the Flying Saucers” was an adage employed by persons of the period to mean

things are not what they seem, or one should beware of that which they saw.

     Perhaps the most compelling words on the car are, “Done by a crazy woman,” in reference to

the smashed left rear fender.  In the aftermath of the beguiling of Eve, when God has confronted

both she and Adam and it has been revealed that Lucifer was the entity responsible, God said,

“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall

bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” (Genesis 3:15, [12]). We can draw a parallel here

between the rear fender of the vehicle—front to back = top to bottom = head to heel—and the

heel; one is smashed, the other bruised, but both done by a “crazy” woman. Commentary into

this passage states, “This verse contains the first implicit promise of God’s plan of redemption

for the world.  It predicts the ultimate victory for humankind and God over Satan and evil by

prophesying of a spiritual conflict between the “seed” of the woman (i.e., the Lord Jesus Christ)

and the “seed” of the serpent (i.e., Satan and his followers). God promised here that Christ would

be born of a woman (Isaiah 7:14 confirms this with, “Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you

a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. [1005])

and would be “bruised” through His crucifixion. Yet, He would rise from the dead to completely

destroy (i.e., “bruise”) Satan, sin, and death for the sake of the salvation of the human race.”

A lot of speculation has been given to Ellie Oscar’s part in the story, but I believe it to be

a metaphor for those who follow along without conscience, unquestioningly, along for the ride

regardless of the consequence. He will sit in the back, Arnold says time and again, like that voice

in the back of one’s head he or she will not heed. Connie even makes the comment, “He’s kinda

strange” (57), like a voice of reason one has all but forgotten.

The prevalence of and reference to flies proliferate the story; flies have always bespoken

pestilence, evil, and death.

More hints to Arnold’s true identity: Is the X, his sign, a corrupted cross, much like the

Nazis employed? Was his off-balance stature the result of his loose-fitting boots, indeed hiding

cloven-hoofed feet?  His glittering eyes, the sunglasses (used to hide the horns on his head?) are

all sure tell-tale signs, but in the end I think what we are left with is simply this: Ms. Oates did

employ the use of Satan, but simply as a metaphor. Mankind is inherently evil, and I believe Sa-

tan was used to symbolize the evil in (Charles Schmid’s, thus) Arnold Friend’s heart, and not just

Arnold’s but Connie’s as well.

1,235 words

References Cited

Legacies (51-61) 4^th ed. Schmidt, Crockett, Bogarad. 2009. Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Bos-

ton, MASS.

The Full Life Study Bible (KJV; 12, 396, 1005) Stamps, Adams.  1992.  Zondervan Publishing

House. Grand Rapids, Michigan

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 3^rd ed.  Houghton Mifflin Co. 

1992.