English Essay 20

“Is this novel, Philip Dru, Administrator, a defense of liberty?”

The defense of liberty, is this necessary? What is liberty? Merriam-Webster defines liberty as follows; “The quality or state of being free.” “A right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant.” Liberty is undeniably a personal right all societies should accept and implement. When citizens of any country have the freedom to live their life in a manner self-deemed appropriate, how would the economy not thrive? Adults should choose their lifestyle while never infringing on other’s rights. The purpose of government is to uphold and protect the rights of the people. When the government overreaches its power, it puts a strain on the citizens, such as taxes, giving away money for the government to waste. When government slacks and crimes are undiscovered, life is simply chaos. Laws are necessary, justice uphold, but a precise machine runs smoothly. When one singular person is making decisions solely based on their experiences, judgment, point of view, values, and agenda, they will act accordingly to their agenda, good or bad. A singular person should never attain all authority. Pure intentions corrupted, creates a corrupt society.

Philip Dru’s dictatorship described as a humble “administrator” portrays the American people as naive and willing to watch our beloved country be torn to shreds. Edward M. House saw the American people as nothing more than obedient, mindless pawns “bettered” by this idiot’s pure genius. Mr. House was mistaken. The liberty defined by Philip Dru is the protection of his own. Chaos fabricated to create his defined reality, which is, in a manner, a fanatic delusional man believing he was a saint.

English Essay 19

“Would I have voted for the income tax amendment in 1912, based on the arguments in this book?”

Philip Dru: Administrator written by Edward M. House, a close consultant to the former President Woodrow Wilson (1913 to 1921). The first publishing of the novel was in 1912, a futuristic novel of the 1920s and ’30s. First published anonymously, House’s identity was later revealed in a speech given by Republican Senator Lawrence Shaw. The political ideals expressed in House’s novel are extreme. Having government significantly expanded, with ultimate control in the hands of one man. When easily corrupted mankind takes control, corruption spreads like a disease, killing the most innocent lives, taking pleasure in devouring its victims.

Philip Dru: Administrator, a progressive idea that government expansion will create a perfect and civil utopia through the genius of a young man, Philip Dru. In his mid-twenties, Philip Dru happened to be a specialist in military strategy and a military genius. Deemed courageous and wise, after a revolution in America, Dru finds himself becoming the leader and dictator of the country he claims to love. Justifying his actions as justice for the people, Dru sets off completely reinventing America. Eliminating the constitutional government, heart-set on destroying greedy corporations and businesses, taking it so far as expanding America. He can somehow see through every mistake and flaw written in civil law from the past 200 years. Somehow Mr. Dru was a saint, incapable of becoming enthralled with his power, disappearing off the face of the earth after destroying the democracy of America.

Why would Edward House have written a book about this “perfect” utopia? Perhaps he wrote this novel as a satire, or he truly believed this type of society could function; in this case, it is the latter. Mr. House was ambitious. When Woodrow Wilson became President, the plans described in his novel were soon put in action. Rare, exceptional, and unheard of, this book was an outlet for the ideas Mr. House possessed.

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” – James Madison

English Essay 18

“Which of the three authors would you prefer to read on your own time? Why?”

O. Henry, Ambrose Bierce, and Jack London were all American wordsmiths who gained popularity in the late 19th century and the early 20th century. Each wrote short stories but the themes and values are very different from each other. The fiction they wrote was not the kind of supernatural, mystical, fantastic sci-fi fiction we have today. Instead, they focused on the relationships between man and nature.

Ambrose Bierce uses his stories to paint the bleak, cynical world that humanity has created. The Devil’s Dictionary, where a man has completely lost his faith in everything, is a perfect example of Bierce’s view of mankind. Bierce was more than a pessimist; dejected, hopeless. The Devil’s Dictionary is long, depressing, well-written paragraphs of hopelessness. Bierce critiqued Christianity and all religions, defining it as follows; “Religion. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.” Bierce brought a philosophical belief into his writing that if there is no permanent moral standard, how can we then judge right from wrong? Bierce also seemed to believe we could not use reason for our understanding. “Logic, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.”

O. Henry is the polar opposite of Bierce. The focus of his stories is human relationships and the beauty they can ensue. O. Henry’s stories are truly human. The theme of his stories focuses on love and friendship, which speaks to his values. He valued life, love, and friendship, a necessary need for all humans.

Jack London, instead, focuses on the relationship between humanity and nature. The struggle between the two has equal force. Nature, with her given qualities; winds, seas, lightning. Humanity, using wits, and our ability to make tools. The adventurous essence of London’s stories creates stories not quite bleak nor overly thrilling. The disconnect of the human relationships compared to O. Henry’s stories paints a rather dull, muted painting.

In conclusion, who would I be most likely to read? I would choose Ambrose Bierce. Not because I agree with his worldview but because his work is dark, I like darker themes in stories because it reflects the broken mess that the world is. It is easy to settle into the world, but if we forget how broken we humans are, we forget how incredible God’s gift is. Bierce’s craft is like silver polished tenfold. One sentence can be a gut-wrenching experience, I would not want to read his work all the time, but it makes me think and explain why I disagree with his reasoning.