December 2016/January 2017

The Independent Journal of Opinion at the College of the Holy Cross December 2016/January 2017

Volume XXIV, Issue III

Quod Verum Pulchrum sites.google.com/a/g.holycross.edu/the-fenwick-review

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS Whatever You Did for One of the Least of These............5

Stefanie Raymond ‘18 The Shell of Politics...........................................................7 Claude Hanley ‘18 Abortion: Slavery in the 21st Century..............................9

Greg Giangiordano ‘18

A More Perfect Union.......................................................11

Bill Christ ‘18

How to Speak Trump........................................................13

Audrey Holmes ‘19 Brooks, Waugh, and the Joy of Divine Love.................15 Brooke Tranten ‘17

Afterglow....................................................................17

Patrick Connolly ‘18

Persicos Odi...............................................................18

Claude Hanley ‘18

ADORATION OF THE BLESSED SACRAMENT

EVERY THURSDAY, 7:30 PM8:30 PM, ST. JOSEPH'S CHAPEL

Sacrament of Reconciliation available for entire hour Sponsored by the Society of Saints Peter and Paul

The Fenwick Review 2016-2017 Staff Co-Editors in Chief Brooke Tranten ‘17 Claude Hanley ‘18 Layout Editor Audrey Holmes ‘19 Staff Writers Greg Giangiordano ‘18 Luke Lapean ‘19 Bill Christ ‘18 Austin Barselau ‘18 Robert Roberge ‘18 Webmaster Elinor Reilly ‘18 Faculty Advisor Professor David Lewis Schaefer Political Science Cover Art: Stefanie Raymond ‘18

Disclaimers This journal is published by students of the Crucifix..............................................................................18 College of the Holy Cross and is produced two or three times per semester. The College of the Melissa Gryan ‘18 Holy Cross is not responsible for its content.

Curtain...............................................................................19 Articles do not necessarily reflect the opnion of the editorial board.

Melissa Gryan ‘18

Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defeneded constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom, and then lost it, have never known it again.

--Ronald Reagan

Donation Policy The Fenwick Review is funded through a generous grant from the Collegiate Network as well as individual donations. The Fenwick Review is an organization incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We welcome any donation you might be able to give to support our cause! To do so, please write a check to The Fenwick Review and mail to: Brooke Tranten and Claude Hanley P.O. Box 4A 1 College Street

Mission Statement As the College of the Holy Cross’s independent journal of opinion, The Fenwick Review strives to promote intellectual freedom and progress on campus. The staff of The Fenwick Review takes pride in defending traditional Catholic principles and conservative ideas, and does its best to articulate thoughtful alternatives to the dominant campus ethos. Our staff values Holy Cross very much, and desires to help make it the best it can be by strengthening and renewing the College’s Catholic identity, as well as working with the College to encourage constructive dialogue and an open forum to foster new ideas.​

To the Benefactors: We must reserve the space to offer a heartfelt thank you to our benefactors, without whom The Fenwick Review would not exist. We extend our profound gratitude to The Collegiate Network and the generous individual and alumni donors to The Fenwick Review, for their ongoing enthusiasm and support of our mission.

Mr. Guy C. Bosetti Mr. Robert W. Graham III Mr. Robert R. Henzler The Hon. Paul J. Hanley Mr. Kevin O’Scannlain Mr. Sean F. Sullivan Jr. Dr. and Mrs. Paul Braunstein Mr. and Mrs. Richard Fisher Mr. and Mrs. Thomas W. Greene Mr. William Horan Mr. Robert J. Leary ‘49 Fr. Paul Scalia Mr. and Mrs. Michael Dailey Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Gorman Mr. Paul M. Guyet Mr. Joseph Kilmartin Mr. Francis Marshall ‘48 Dr. Ronald Safko Mr. John J. Ferguson Dr. Thomas Craig MD, MPH, ‘59

Letter from the Editors Thank you for picking up a copy of the Fenwick Review.

Advent is upon us. The election has finally passed, though the anger and social strife has not receded. Our campus is torn between what we are and what we want to be. Life is a flickering and fragile thing, as the strife and death of the evening news reminds us. Comedy has become a trite litany of condescending identity politics. But Advent bears witness to hope: for politics, for free and just society, for the family. We are all members of the human family and so must treat our brothers and sisters, including the most vulnerable among us, as such. Catholics are to perform the Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy, some of which present uncomfortable duties such as Welcoming the Stranger and Admonishing the Sinner.

Holy Cross’s Catholicism demands that it be a beacon of hope. Its creed and history give it that potential. We would see it actualize its potential. We criticize because we know Holy Cross can better fulfill its mission, to form young people in the values of the Catholic moral and intellectual tradition.

That academic, ethical tradition is not a tool by which an outdated oppressive institution wields power over the weak, but a timeless repository of human freedom. Freedom is not easy, nor it is always palatable, but it is always beautiful. Beauty sometimes seems ugly to us because it often manifests itself in ugly circumstances, but it is still there. Quod Verum Pulchrum.

In good faith, we present this issue to you. First, our multitalented Ms. Raymond describes the suffering of refugees and Syrians in light of this season of Advent. Her haunting image of mother and child, another nod to Advent, graces our cover. Mr. Hanley follows up the admonition to Welcome the Stranger in his discussion on freedom and the family in human life. Mr. Giangiordano draws a convincing parallel between the institution of slavery and abortion and what that means for human rights. Mr. Christ takes a judicial approach to human rights and how the Constitution checks presidential tyranny.

Ms. Holmes offers a measured look on the power of well-developed linguistics and the use of satire in contemporary political discourse. Finally, Ms. Tranten presents a lighthearted take on the proper ends, and best employers of, comedy and satire.

At the close of this trying year and stressful semester, we would like to thank the benefactors for their exemplary generosity and thoughtful correspondence.

Our gratitude also extends to our staff, for their patience, professionalism, and talent. Thank you, readers, for our charitable comments and inquiring minds.

We wish a blessed Advent and Christmas season to all in the Holy Cross community and beyond.

Petite Veritatem, Brooke Tranten Claude Hanley

4

Whatever You Did for One of the Least of These

Stefanie Raymond ‘18

How often do we stop and really consider the “The émigré Holy Family of Nazareth, fleeing situation of these Syrian refugees? We hear the into Egypt, is the archetype of every refugee family. numbers and see tragic pictures of people crammed Jesus, Mary and Joseph, living in exile in Egypt to onto boats and lifeless bodies lying on beaches. But, escape the fury of an evil king, are...the models and as the Holy Father asks, “Has any one of us grieved protectors of every migrant, alien and refugee.” (Pius for the death of these brothers and sisters? Has any XII, Exsul Familia Nazarethana, 1952) one of us wept for these persons?” With every new Amidst the joy and celebrations of the Christmas picture or news story we see, we become more season, it is easy to forget that Jesus was born apathetic to the suffering. This indifference in the face during a time of intense social unrest and political of suffering and injustice, Pope Francis warns, only persecution. Learning that the messiah of the Jewish furthers the harm already being done to these people. people had been born, Even still, others work to We hear the numbers and Herod ordered the prevent any refugees from slaughter of all boys aged see tragic pictures of people entering the country at all, two and younger living crammed onto boats and labeling them as “terrorists” within the vicinity of or “threats” to our nation’s Bethlehem. Meanwhile, lifeless bodies lying on security. They claim that the Holy Family, having beaches. But, as the Holy allowing a mass influx of been previously warned Syrian refugees into the by an angel, sought Father asks, “Has any one of country will inevitably lead refuge in Egypt, where us grieved for the death of to terrorism, ignoring the fact they stayed until Herod’s since 2001, not one of the death. these brothers and sisters? that 750,000 refugees that have Over two thousand settled in the United States years later, the saga has been linked to any act of of the Holy Family’s domestic terrorism. In September, Donald Trump Jr. exile continues as millions of families are uprooted tweeted, “If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you from their homes in Syria, in what the U.N. calls the just three would kill you. Would you take a handful? “worst humanitarian crisis of our time.” Since 2011, That’s our Syrian refugee problem.” But we are approximately 4.8 million refugees have fled Syria; talking about human beings, not pieces of candy. We another 6.6 million remain internally displaced. are talking about people who have fled extreme Furthermore, the conflict has killed an estimated four violence and destruction in the hopes of a better life. hundred thousand people and injured millions more.

It is understandable to want to protect our nation’s Routine bombing has reduced entire cities to rubble, security. But it is unjust to close our doors to the destroyed vital infrastructure, and ravaged the lives suffering in order to preserve our own comfort. How of countless civilians. Yet again, the slaughter of the different are we, then, from Herod, who ordered the innocents drives Middle Eastern families from their death of thousands of innocent infants for the sake of homes. Unfortunately, despite leaving behind the his own security? turmoil within Syria, these refugees continue to face As Christians, we are called to welcome the hardships as their flight is often marked by extreme stranger, to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. In danger, exploitation, and discrimination.

5

the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus presents to us a model for how we ought to live in relation to each other. Seeing a man lying badly beaten on the side of the road, a Samaritan passerby takes him, bandages his wounds, and provides him with shelter--all without any consideration of what it would cost him. Ending the passage, Jesus commands, “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37). Furthermore, in Matthew 25, Jesus states, “Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me” (Matt 25:40). Therefore, when we reject the stranger, the refugee, we reject Christ Himself.

Advent is a time of preparation meant to re-focus our lives toward the coming of Jesus. As we observe this season of increased renewal and anticipation, let us reflect, in light of the Syrian refugee crisis, on the plight of the Holy Family, the urgency in which they fled, and the heart of Jesus’s ministry. Let us heed our Christian call to show mercy and love to the stranger.

Let us see our shared humanity.

For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

(Galatians 5:14)

The Shell of Politics Claude Hanley ‘18 Co-Editor With the end of the election season and the beginning of Advent, our attention is drawn in two directions. The apocalyptic rhetoric of a bruising electoral contest, and the reactions to its result on both sides, has placed liberty and human rights squarely before our attention. Both sides have vowed to defend and expand the “freedoms” that make America what it is, and bitterly denounced the other side’s attempts to encroach upon those same freedoms. Simultaneously, with the start of Advent, the Catholic Church celebrates the family as it awaits the birth of Christ to a human mother. One is religious, the other, political; one is ancient history, the other present fact; one is eternal, the other transient. Nonetheless, the family is intricately linked with political reality, and with the freedom it claims to defend.

Politics concerns itself with justice, and therefore explicitly with ethics. Indeed, the most heated topics of the long campaign were moral issues. The vigorous debates over abortion and hate speech prove this point. They also highlight a troubling dimension of the current ethical landscape. On different issues throughout this election, one side or the other abandoned positive moral reasoning, and reverted to claims of “right” and “liberty.” This is how many Americans think of morality today: not in terms of what is right, but in terms of what is permitted. We appeal to a freedom to do what we like, and ignore the manifestly obvious moral duties which we owe to one another. We obsess over our rights, and ignore our obligations. This self-defeating logic excuses unspeakable evil in the name of human liberty.

When we tolerate the most grievous of crimes in pursuit of personal license, we foreclose the possibility of natural rights and authentic freedom. Natural rights belong to all human beings, regardless of the colors of their passports. As such, they presuppose

moral duties. What exactly those duties are exceeds the scope of this piece; an example will illustrate the point. If a right to life exists for a middle-aged man from Chicago, it must also exist for children in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. That being the case, the middle-aged Chicagoan has a moral duty not to encourage remote drone strikes which will unavoidably take the lives of the Pakistanis. If that moral duty is ignored, the rights of others are compromised, and so the inviolability of natural rights as a whole. Natural rights become arbitrary norms. Where then is the basis for political liberty?

Authentic human freedom consists in more than merely political rights. It is not the freedom to do what we want; it is the freedom to do what we ought. If freedom were nothing more than license, it would swiftly reveal itself as slavery. Can the heroin addict or the alcoholic be called “free” in any but a superficial sense? Certainly not; the needle and bottle bind more tightly than any chain. Freedom shuns the addiction to evil. License revels in it. Internal freedom requires a robust ethical foundation in order to know the good, and then to do it. Without knowing the good, no human can be free. In a society which generally accepts the precepts of moral relativism, and denies the validity of natural moral norms, authentic human freedom is increasingly under threat.

An individualistic approach to social life cannot cure this cultural sickness. Instead, it requires a communitarian, family-centered society to preserve the freedoms we cherish. The family offers positive proof that human beings are not primarily individuals, for it indicates that human beings are not selfcontained and self-defined. Instead, humanity is born to relation; every individual exists because of and for others. As Pope Benedict has observed, “It is not by

Authentic human freedom consists in more than merely political rights. It is not the freedom to do what we want; it is the freedom to do what we ought

Syrian refugees flee on a boat

6

December/January 2017 The Fenwick Review

7

isolation that man establishes his worth, but by placing himself in relation with others and with God.” The family is the setting in which we become ourselves, and are made free.

Equally important, the family is the root of ethics. It relies on the notion of duty: the care which parents owe their children, the honor children owe their parents, and the love which each owes to all.

The connection of duty with rights follows naturally from this; every parent has duties precisely because each child has rights. Furthermore, parents are the first moral forces in their children’s lives. The family dynamic constantly teaches and reinforces the notions of right and wrong. As such, it is the foundational unit of any ethical system. Morally speaking, the ideal family would free each person to do what he or she ought.

Any attack on the natural family amounts to an

attack on human rights and human freedom. Neither major political party authentically supports the family; both have embraced the neoliberal orthodoxy of individualism, which explicitly undermines the human family. Both were represented by candidates whose personal behaviour and historical positions undercut their purported support for “family values.” This should be a time for despair. And yet, Catholics have entered the season of Advent. We look towards the Nativity, the Son’s birth to a human family. Beyond it waits the feast of the Holy Innocents, which commemorates the children slaughtered in the name of political power. The archetypal family survived that first assault. In time, Christ emerged from its embrace to liberate the human race from sin. The family endured Herod; it can endure our politics. In time, let us hope that it will nourish a new freedom within the shell of the old.

Abortion: Slavery in the 21st Century Greg Giangiordano ‘18 Staff Writer

When you look at an infant, what do you see, and what do you feel? You see a small head covered in peach-like fur, and delicate hands and feet that wave and kick happily. You might feel peacefully content, like there is something right with the world, and you might feel protective, like’s your instinctive duty to safeguard this helpless child. You might even be excited and hopeful for what this child might become in the years ahead. Whatever you might see or feel, there is no denying the fact that this child is a human being and that this child is entitled to the same rights and opportunities that are granted to every other human being. It would be absurd to think otherwise.

Today, in 2016 America, we would all agree that all people, no matter what age, gender, or ethnicity, are people. In our country, this is a universally accepted fact.

But, to use an example, there was a time when intelligent and respectable people argued that other people, because of a small difference in their biology, were either not human at all or were lesser humans than others. I am specifically speaking of African-American enslavement in our country and how, for much of our country’s history, African-Americans were thought of as sub-humans and somehow deserving of enslavement. This view, thankfully, has changed.

Today, we would all say that it is ludicrous to think that an African-American would be any less human than a person of any other ethnicity, and we all look at slavery as one of the most vile, horrible, shameful thing in which our country has ever participated. But is slavery truly dead? Do we not say that infants, developing in the womb, are not really people because they are not fully developed, and isn’t this just a small difference in their biology? Is this any less ludicrous than saying a black man or woman is less human

simply because of the small biological difference in the pigmentation of his or her skin? I argue that abortion is no less an insult to the dignity of man than African-American enslavement was.

Consider, for a moment, a purely secular argument, using no religious belief or doctrine of any kind. We would have to say that human beings do not have souls, and are nothing more than walking, talking, thinking meat-sacks. If we say this, then what we call our consciousness, that which makes us human beings and not animals, is contained entirely within the brain.

Now, if a female brain does not fully develop until a female human is approximately 21 years-old, and a male brain does not fully develop until a male human is approximately 25 years-old, and modern neuroscience says that this is so, then logically no female is fully human until her brain is fully developed at 21 yearsold, and no male is fully human until his brain is fully developed at 25 years-old. We must then conclude that no human female is fully human until she is 21, and no human male is fully human until he is 25. Therefore all males and females before those two ages can be aborted, not just those males and females yet to be born. This is, of course, ridiculous.

So, if logical reasoning is ridiculous, how do we figure out where to draw the line? I submit that we need to rely on the illogical, on faith-based reasoning.

Christians believe in God and believe in the validity of the Word of God (the Bible). Some Christians feel that abortion is a valid option, but the Bible contradicts such a notion. God says to the prophet Jeremiah “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you…”

(Jeremiah 1:5). God does not tell Jeremiah, “before I formed you in the womb I knew the matter that was to become you” or “before you were born I dedicated

Today, in 2016 America, we would all agree that all people, no matter what age, gender, or ethnicity, are people. In our country, this is a universally accepted fact.

8

December/January 2017 The Fenwick Review

9

the lump of matter that would become you”. The Lord said “I knew you…I dedicated you”. God used the pronoun you to make it clear that Jeremiah was neither an object before his conception nor during his development in the womb: he was already fully human. He was a he, not an it. Was Jeremiah unique in his treatment by God? Was he fundamentally any more special than any other human being that came before him or after him? No, he was a human being just like any other. And if God told Jeremiah that he was not an object, not an it before his birth, but rather a he, then it can be reasonably deduced that every other human being is also fully human before his or her birth. Therefore, human beings, born and unborn, developing and fully developed, are all completely human. If Christians accept this, then Christians must also accept that the choice to have or facilitate an abortion cannot be made in good conscience.

To quote W. E. B. Du Bois, “nothing is so calculated to ruin human nature as absolute power over human beings”. Du Bois was speaking about slavery, but this rings true for abortion as well. If Du Bois is to be believed, then there is hardly anything more morally and spiritually corrosive than wielding absolute power over other human beings. Abortion, therefore, is nothing short of a conscious decision to wield absolute power over another fully human being, and cannot result in anything less than the utter corruption of our human nature, just as white slaveholders experienced a century and a half ago.

At one point in our nation’s history, many Americans were so sure that African-Americans were not fully human. Is it so absurd to think that we could be wrong about the unborn as well? And, if there is doubt, is it not wiser to give every child the right to live than it is to assume that we know for sure?

Bill Christ ‘18 Staff Writer

A More Perfect Union

Throughout the election season we have heard the refrain “make America great again” by Donald Trump. His message of American economic resurgence was a rallying call for his supporters who have been adversely affected by governmental polices over the past few decades. However, President-Elect Trump’s message was erroneous. America is, was, and will always be great. The economic or lofty rhetoric employed by a candidate does not make America the best nation on earth, but dedication to the laws and institutions of the republican system of government do.

Respect for law and public institutions have been at the core of American identity for centuries. It is the reason why other nations look to America for democratic inspiration. The Constitutional Framers who met in Philadelphia were wary of potentially damaging the will of the people.

With this view in mind, the Framers did not create a pure democracy where a simple majority would be ensured victory, but a system designed to protect minority opinions from being silenced. Taking a stand against the Electoral College because it is an undemocratic system is an admittance of ignorance over the ideals of America’s founding document. If the Electoral College should be disbanded for being undemocratic, then the Senate, the House, and Supreme Court should be as well.

Policy should then be chosen solely by referendum.

By protesting the outcome of the election because it did not produce a winner who won the popular vote undermines American republicanism. By calling into question the legitimacy of President-Elect Trump’s election, the 227 year-old precedent of American democracy is diminished as well. These opponents of the Constitutional guard against pure democracy and are part of the growing population who look upon

America’s highest law with disdain.

This post-Constitutional mindset is symptomatic of judicial activists who favor a “living” document or those who disregard the document entirely by deciding the texts means whatever they want them to mean. These post-Constitutionalists view the Constitution, and the Electoral College, as outdated institutions because they are part of a text that should evolve over time. In a recent article, an author cited “all men are created equal” when criticizing the supposed inequalities of the Constitution. Is this phrase contained within some secret article of the Constitution’s where rights to privacy, abortion, and others are chronicled? Citing a passage from the Declaration of Independence to criticize the “wrongs” of the Constitution makes as much sense as protesting an American election for not being free and fair.

For those anxious about President-Elect Trump’s policies, such worries are unwarranted if the Constitution is held in high regard. The institutions of 1787 were enacted as a way to check the powers of the federal government. The republican system of governance does not allow any one branch to terrorize the populace nor does it provide a vehicle by which power can be consolidated. This prevents a majority party from abusing the minority and such diffusion of power obstructs the rise of a tyrant. In his Address to the Young Men’s Lyceum, a 28 year-old Abraham Lincoln said that power disdains a beaten path, meaning that no tyrant would be able to accrue enough power in America as a result of the republican system. The comparison of President-Elect Trump to authoritarians like Hitler is fallacious. The Weimar Republic was a democracy, a much purer one than the United States, and one less stable and weaker than that of the United States.

Respect for law and public institutions have been at the core of American identity for centuries. It is the reason why other nations look to America for democratic inspiration

In 2013, more African-American children were aborted than were born in New York City

10

December/January 2017 The Fenwick Review

11

When the Framers created our republic, they did so with the knowledge that previous republics have fallen in ancient Greece and Rome. Alexander Hamilton recognized this fact and proposed it in the first Federalist Paper by saying that the success of America will determine whether or not the world will look upon the American experiment as a model of selfgovernment. In the years since 1787, countless nations around the world have seen their republican systems of government fall. After the French Revolution, the French people created their first republic but four

more have succeeded it. Our American institutions provide checks against growing tyranny and violations of our natural rights. Even if President-elect Trump had the same ambitions and horrendous beliefs as 20th-century authoritarians, the Constitution and its institutions would prevent those ideas from being acted upon. Americans must view these institutions and the Constitution with respect because they are true safeguards against tyranny. Notwithstanding the coming of a Trump presidency, America’s best days lie ahead to the future as she continues to be a more perfect union.

How to Talk Trump Audrey Holmes’19 Staff Writer Donald Trump impersonations never fail to amuse me, so long as they are good. Whenever I stumble across a Trump impersonation, whether on Twitter or on Comedy Central, there are always a few defining features that make the impersonation uniquely Trump. It is the orange skin and the yellow comb over and the tight lipped, squint eyed countenance, but also something more. It is the monosyllabic, charged rhetoric that at times seems incoherent, but nevertheless is effective in capturing the audience’s attention and conveying his message, however disjointed or challenging it may seem.

In a video titled “Make America One Syllable” on the site Digg.com, an aggregator that gathers stories which online newsreaders might find relevant or interesting, Nerdwriter1” quantitatively and qualitatively analyzes a response Trump gives to comedian Jimmy Kimmel when he is being interviewed on his show. It is not so much his response that was so compelling, but rather, it was his rhetoric, diction and delivery that made it so interesting. Trump gives a 220 word answer at one point, and of those 220 words, 172 of them are monosyllabic. Only four words in the entire 220 word answer are three syllables, and of those four words, three of them are the word “tremendous”.

In another study, the Boston Globe put all 2016 presidential candidates’ announcement speeches through the Flesch-Kincaid readability test, an algorithm used for determining reading level. In this test, the total words are divided by the total sentences and multiplied by 1.015. Then the total syllables are divided by the total words and multiplied by 84.6.

Finally, these two totals are subtracted from 206.835.

Scores between 90 and 100 are considered to be

understood by a 5th grader, scores between 60 and 70 are considered to be understood by 8th and 9th graders, and scores between 0 and 30 are considered to be understood by college graduates.

Trump came out as having a 4th grade reading level, while candidates such as Bernie Sanders and Jim Gilmore, who were among the first to be eliminated in the process, came out at a 10th grade reading level.

Trump led the GOP and won the 2016 presidential election, all while talking at a 4th grade reading level.

Trump avoids complex, highfalutin language that deals with intricate issues, and instead talks in emotional and simple terms. And apparently it works. This is quite a transition from previous presidents such as George Washington, whose “Farewell Address” garnered him a graduate degree reading level.

This idea of rhetoric being so powerful may seem farfetched to some. However, it is not all that uncommon, and in fact has repeatedly shown itself throughout history. For instance, Alexander Pope, an 18th century poet, is best known for his satirical masterpiece, “The Rape of the Lock.” In this poem, Pope uses elevated, grandiose language to make mundane events in life appear ironically sacred and important. A woman getting ready in the morning is characterized in religious terms. A man cutting off a piece of a woman’s hair is seen as a “rape.” It is the opposite of what Trump does. He explains complex, difficult issues in the simplest terms possible, but it has that same effect of resonating with the audience because of the ingenious use of rhetoric. This notion is seen in an even more contemporary example. Rapper Eminem is the bestselling artist of the past decade, and holds the record for the fastest selling rap album of all time.

He is also one of the most controversial rappers of all

It is the monosyllabic, charged rhetoric that at times seems incoherent, but nevertheless is effective in capturing the audience’s attention and conveying his message, however disjointed or challenging it may seem.

The Supreme Court of the United States

12

December/January 2017 The Fenwick Review

13

time, with lyrics about murdering homosexuals and females in his characteristic graphic rhetoric. Eminem shocks and disgusts many people with his explosive, zany, offbeat lyrics and rhetoric, but people still buy his music.

An effective way to convey a message seems to be to make ironic use of rhetoric. Pope speaks about the trivial and mundane in oddly elevated terms in

his most celebrated poem, “The Rape of the Lock.”

Trump speaks about complex issues plaguing society in excruciatingly oversimplified language in many of his speeches. The way one uses language directly affexts how listeners receive them. Trump has proven that people tend to listen, and perhaps even listen more, when there is eedgy and inflammatory rhetoric being used.

Brooks, Waugh and the Joy of Divine Love Brooke Tranten ‘17 Co-Editor Being funny is equated with general nastiness in Mel Brooks is as popular as he is today and keeps our Internet-driven culture, in more ways than one. working into his nineties because he is joyful. Mr. Humor is now used as a marker of status. Whoever Brooks’ joy has imbued his comedy. This joy reminds gets the most followers for their #savage Tweet “wins us not to take ourselves too seriously, as the uptight the internet.” Online troll culture is injurious to the psychiatrist Richard Thorndike with a fear of heights trolls themselves, those they hurt, and good taste in High Anxiety so brilliantly draws out. Mel Brooks’ everywhere. Humor, including parody and satire, comedy is not sneering, nasty, or moralistic, but is ought not imitate this unfortunate development if it just fun. It is light-hearted in the best sense, in that is coming from the place Online troll culture is injurious it is reflective of the joy of where true humor arises. life and love. Life is just as to the trolls themselves, those True humor comes from beautiful in Nazi-occupied joy, that mysterious lasting Poland again in To Be or Not they hurt, and good taste peace that comes only as to Be as Fredrick Bronski everywhere.

Humor, including free gift from God and inadvertently rescues a parody and satire, ought reaches beyond the self to cabal of Jews on his way to God. The filmmaker Mel Whether or not he not imitate this unfortunate England.

Brooks’ humor, as risqué himself realizes it, I would development if it is coming from wager that Mr. Brooks’ joy and politically incorrect it can be, comes from the place where true humor has its roots in the joy of this place of joy. On the Divine Love, a thing that arises. other hand, satire has an defies definition but points to eye toward correction of itself through example. a ridiculous happening or disposition. The English Evelyn Waugh is a poor example of the joy of Catholic novelist Evelyn Waugh was a master of Divine Love. Waugh was notoriously difficult, satire, though the joy was often lacking. However, we snobby, and downright rude to most. His younger need both. days at Oxford were debauched, sexually and Why can the nonagenarian Mr. Brooks sell out spiritually. Waugh was haunted by depression, auditoriums in major cities by making ten-minute addiction, and self-loathing for most of his life. His appearances at showings of Blazing Saddles? The conversion to Catholicism in 1930 saved him and short answer is because he is funny. His films are damned him all at once, and he was too sensitive funny, his personal appearances are funny. His first not to notice the paradox. However, it is difficult to film, The Producers, was about two Broadway connail down just how far Waugh’s misanthropy went, men who make millions off of a farce of a show about and that is why his satire was so on point. After Adolf Hitler. Mel Brooks’ humor is not political in he entered the Church, it is quite possible that Mr. the vein of Saturday Night Live, practically sobbing Waugh reevaluated his ingrained suspicion of his over Mrs. Clinton’s loss, even when it explicitly has to fellow man as a gift from God. The caveat, however, do with politics. What might now be classified as the is that such a gift must be directed toward its proper most offensive humor, race and religion, is not offend. The proper end of satire is poking fun at a given limits either. I believe it is safe to say that Mr. Brooks subject to dramatize the inconsistences or absurdities could not produce another Blazing Saddles today, for found within it. Satire need not be nice, or silly, and the racial humor alone.

Waugh’s was neither.

14

December/January 2017 The Fenwick Review

15

To put it gently, Waugh’s humor is biting. He did not fear absurdism if he deemed it necessary. Black Mischief is a satire of British imperialism and high middle-class ennui. Two dopey Oxford graduates try to modernize an African island nation but end up descending into savagery, including cannibalism, themselves out of sheer boredom. Waugh saw through the superficiality of his interwar English smartset culture, mostly because he saw plainly his own considerable failings. Vile Bodies is a send-up of the Bright Young Things, the decadent young London society of the interwar period. Romantic comedy abounds in the triteness of Adam Fenwick-Symes trying to woo the equally shallow Nina, a partially fictionalized account of Waugh’s disastrous first marriage. While Brooks is hilarious for his farce, Waugh’s funniest moments in his novels come from his penetrating insights into the ridiculousness of human action and sin. Who can forget that wickedly irreverent line in Brideshead Revisited, “My darling, I’m inverted, not insatiable. Come back when you’re alone”? Waugh’s satire is necessary and well-placed in most of his writings. He represents the critical angle of humor that is so often ham-handed or inappropriately placed in contemporary discourse.

He was smart about his satire and was sharp without being uncharitable, most of the time. Waugh’s major downfall is that his satire does not come from

a joyous disposition like Mr. Brooks’ does, but his own personality would have never let it be so. His insights are unsettlingly, and often hilariously, correct, however, and that is why his writings retain their popularity.

I may well be entirely off-base in daring to compare Mel Brooks and Evelyn Waugh. I have always had a soft spot for Evelyn Waugh’s salty personality and sneering wit. I believe Mr. Brooks’ musical numbers, such as Inquisition bit in History of the World Part I, to be amongst the best in film of the past fifty years. I fully concede that these pages are occasionally guilty of the nastier sort of satire and sophomoric arrogance. Waugh is a paragon of the difficulty of writing satire and the charity it requires, though he succeeded much more in the former than the latter. Mel Brooks’ humor is resplendent in the joy that can only be found in God, whereas Waugh’s satire reminds that the world and its inhabitants are in need of correction if they are to attain their proper end in God. Both point to the insight that humans are most fully human when their hearts and minds are directed toward God. We need both sides, if only to keep us human. Waugh sums it up most adequately, “You have no idea how much nastier I would be if I was not a Catholic. Without supernatural aid, I would hardly be a human being.”

Afterglow Patrick Connolly ‘19

If the air is cold and still If no body is next to you begging you to go keep warm together someplace right after Proudly sit alone As the droves of people continue to celebrate and disappear from all around you.

Stay for the grand finale.

Less fleeting than the fireworks is the low hanging smoke That nebulous plume will stay there refusing to diffuse, gently drifting well after the lights have burnt out.

Watch it drift towards you alone in a field with the rest of the refuse and litter Plastic cups and shredded paper, crushed and damp.

Foil packets drained of their sunshine.

Artifacts of happiness that will last for a thousand years.

Below the smoke that will last just ten minutes just before it thins out enough to brush past and envelop you.

The Master of Farce and the Master of Snark

16

December/January 2017 The Fenwick Review

17

Horace 1.38 - Persicos Odi

Crucifix

Softness silky, luxury, an Eastern gift, This crown of woven linden-leaf I loathe; O wonder not where crimson-colored roses linger latest.

Do not corrupt plain Myrtle , lily-white; It honors each, both slave and served, Who sweat in sun, or sip in shade, beneath the weighted vine.

-Claude Hanley ‘18 Co-Editor

Curtain

Melissa Gryan ‘18

18

December/January 2017 The Fenwick Review

19

The Fenwick Review is proudly sponsored by:

20