The Walrus and the Carpenter

[Never]

(If you wish, simply skip the superfluous data I present and jump to the highlighted question)

Background: The Customer Service Booth in a supermarket.
[The telephone rings and one blonde-haired, blue eyed C.S. Rep quickly scoops it up]
Never: Hello SuperSave East Andover. How may I help you?
Phone: Yes, hello, I'm interested in buying some steamers.
Never: Steamers?
Phone: Yes, steamers.
Never: ...One moment please. [Hits hold and glances around. Then notices her boss walking passed, and so waves her over]
Boss: Yes?
Never: There's a man on the phone, he wants steamers. Do we have any?
Boss: He wants carpet steamers?
Never: Carpet steamers? Do we sell those?
Boss: We used to sell carpet steamers - you know - to clean your rugs.
Never: Okay. [nods and hits line 1] Hello sir?
Phone: Yes, hello.
Never: I'm sorry, we don't carry carpet steamers here. You might try the other store in Andover, would you like the number?
Phone: Carpet steamers?
Never: You know - to clean your rugs.
Phone: No, I think you misunderstood me. I want steamers. To eat.
Never: Oh...Ah, one moment please. [hits hold and looks at boss] He wants steamers to eat; I think he means a rice steamer.
Boss: Rice steamers? I don't think we have any of those. Call the GM Manager.
Never: He's over there by the candy. [Nods to the candy rack in Aisle 12.]
Boss: [Turns around and walks to the GM Manager for a few moments then returns.] No, we don't have rice steamers.
Never: Okay. [hits line 1] Hello?
Phone: Yes?
Never: Hello, we don't have any rice steamers.
Phone: What?
Never: I'm sorry, we don't have any.
Phone: Listen.. I don't want rice. I want steamers.. oysters you under-
Never: Oooh! One moment please. [Hits hold and then Page] Seafood, line 1 please. Seafood you have a call on line 1. [hangs up phone and turns back to Boss.] He wanted oysters.
Boss: I thought so. Do you need anything else?
Never: Nope, thank you.

(More superfluous data to follow - yah certain you don't want to skip to the question?)
The above incident, although meaningless got me thinking of.. Alice and Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. In one part of this story, Tweddle Dee and Dum tell Alice a rhyme about the Walrus and the Carpenter. In it the Walrus and the Carpenter conspire to abduct and devour a group of innocent young oysters, the Walrus send the Carpenter off to fix the trimmings for the meal while he secretly eats them all himself. The poem ends with the Carpenter angrily chasing the Walrus 'round the beach at which point the Brothers ask Alice what she thought of the poem.
I don't have the book with me but if I remember correctly Alice says she liked the poem but she didn't like the Walrus because he ate the little oysters. The Brothers reply that the Carpenter wanted to eat the oysters. She says she dislikes the Carpenter as well. The Brothers point out that the Walrus cried for the oysters and the Carpenter didn't. She says that the Walrus was a better person then. The Brothers then remind her that the Carpenter didn't eat one and that the Walrus's remorse didn't stop him from eating.
At this point Alice says she didn't really like either of them much.
(Jees, are you still reading?)
Alice's problem centers around a single question: Which is more important? A person's actions or their motivations?

The Catholic Church, for instance, says that a person who has committed adultery in their mind has committed adultery. Period. The thought is just as bad as the action. If a person runs into a burning building to save a child they become heroic (or insane) in our eyes, whether they succeed or not. The person who sobs on the edge of the crowd wishing they could help those inside has the motivation - but lacks the action. If a porn mistress works hard to make and run a site then we applaud her - if she does it all for the money we think less of her. If someone helps me, I feel thankful, if they come back later and expect me to help them, I might feel used and resentful. If you hear someone donates five hundred to charity you might think better of them, if you then hear them talk about the tax write off they get for doing so you might this less of them even though the same amount of people were helped.
What's the difference between murder and self defense? You get a dead body any way.

If you look at half the arguments on this board they center around 'Yes, you said this.. but I know this is what you meant. Human beings are social creatures and must constantly speculate about something we can never know - why is this person doing this?

See, I'm rambling now. Best wrap this up. (Here's the question)
Who was the better person? The Walrus who ate the oysters and felt bad about it, or the Carpenter, who didn't eat the oysters and thought only about the food he missed?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This meaningless post was brought to you by SuperSave.
SuperSave, home of the triple coupon price gouges.

 

[Silverlily]

We were doing great until the part about the Catholic church.

I would have to say the Carpenter is the better person only because walruses (or is it walrusi) are not people. However, based on most people I've come in contact with, I'd rather spend an afternoon with a group (or is it herd) of walrus than a group (or is it gaggle) of people. But I don't like oysters and for some reason, always thought Never was a brunette (or is it brownie), so my opinion doesn't count anyway.

Sorry, dear, but you seem to bring out the silly in me.

 

[CreamyLady]

Ogden Nash wrote a poem about sins of commission, and sins of omission. He concluded that the sins of commission were better, because at least one had the fun of committing them.

Personally, I agree. The sins of commission at least have the virtue of action.

The sins of omission do, indeed, lay eggs of regret under the skin.

The walrus, of course.

 

[•Quartz_Crystal•]

I think the Walrus is like a catholic who sins on saturday night and goes for confession on sunday morning.

Sure they feel bad and repent, but I bet if ya put another batch of oysters in front of that damn walrus he'd eat em again!

 

[Jester]

Actions and motivations are both important and it's difficult to try and pull them apart and analyze them seperately.

However, if you really need a one-or-the-other answer, I would have to say that one's actions speak louder and count for more. I don't believe in condeming someone for the thoughts that they have. It's virtually impossible to control the thoughts and impulses that you have. Especially since so much of our own minds are unknown to us.

For instance, when you have a relationship with someone, you don't stop finding other people attractive. You may even indulge in a little fantasy about it. That's normal; it's part of being human. But, there are light years between thinking about tearing one off with that person and actually doing it.

I suppose then, that I would vote for the walrus as being slightly worse.

But that doesn't purge the carpenter of fault, either.

 

[Gingersnap]

Covert attacks on the catholic religion are not new but I am surprized at you being the author of one. Or am I just talking to the Walrus?

[Edited by Gingersnap on 09-18-2000 at 04:42 AM]

 

[Patryn]

Odd. I nicknamed my room mate "The Walrus".

 

[Gaucho]

Covert attacks on the catholic religion are not new but I am surprized at you being the author of one. Or am I just talking to the Walrus?

Okay. First things first. Never's statement that the Catholic Church says that a person who has committed adultery in their mind has committed adultery, period, is not an attack on the church. It is a statement of fact. What's more, because the original statement comes from Jesus himself (…"I say unto you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust in his heart has already committed adultery with her in his heart…") as set down in the Gospel according to Matthew, all Christians are supposed to feel the same way. The broader meaning of the statement applies to all sinful thoughts and while the Catholics may have refined the concept into an art form, they are certainly not alone in teaching it. You may or may not agree with the sentiment, but don't jump all over Never for pointing it out to you.

Quick, meaningless aside: You know, Never, the quote does say "…lust in HIS heart…". Maybe that lets you off the hook for all those lustful feelings you have about Endlessly. But I digress.

Secondly, in the case of the Walrus and the Carpenter, there are a couple of ways of looking at it. In the more literal sense, no sin was committed so why should either of them feel bad about it? They were only eating, after all, and eating is not a sin. Oh, yes, they were eating "…innocent, young oysters…" and from the oysters point of view not a good thing, but life lives on life and let's not forget that there are things out there that eat Walruses (and Carpenters) too, you know. And before any of you vegans or vegetarians jump onto your high horses and proclaim, "But we don't do that!", let me just remind you that you can reduce what you eat to falling leaves if you wish but all you're doing is eating something that can't run away.

Now, of course, you could say that the Walrus is guilty of the sin of gluttony (for tricking the Carpenter into leaving so that he can devour all the tender oysters himself), but really now, does anyone truly believe that the Walrus was being remorseful when he cried about having eaten them all? More crocodile tears have never been shed, I think. On final analysis, the only sinful thought I find in the whole poem is that of the Carpenter wanting to brain the Walrus for denying him his rightful share of the oysters and anyone who's ever missed out on a good meal can relate to that feeling.

On a philosophical level, I'm afraid that we're wandering into an even deeper quandary. Is it better to commit an act and feel remorseful about it (assuming the act itself is bad or sinful - in many cases, a judgment call) or to merely think about it and never actually commit the act? I've always had a difficult time believing that a thought can be sinful in and of itself. And as for the act stemming from that thought, well, it boils down to two things: The outcome of the act and your perspective to it. A case in point would be the example of the person who runs into the burning building to try and save the people inside. No one could be faulted for having the thought and acting on it could only be considered bad if the person failed in the attempt. Even then, the act would almost certainly be considered a noble one. As for the other bystander who entertained the idea and then thought better of it, the line between prudence and cowardice is often wafer thin and written in sand. But how many of us would fault a person for not rushing into a burning building that could collapse at any moment?
Another example: What about this board? If you come on this board and flirt with another member, unbeknownst to your spouse or significant other, is that a sin in thought or in deed? Or does the flirting have to go to the next level, where you become so enamored of the person that you have to meet them, to become the committed act? And even then, is it wrong? I keep coming back to those two words: Outcome and perspective.

I do believe that when we look back over our life we tend to regret more those things we didn't do rather than those we did. I'm not sure if this directly addresses the question or not, but I have to bow to the wisdom of Creamy (and Ogden Nash, of course) on this one. I'd much rather have sins of commission on my conscience than sins of omission.

Unless, of course, I was a serial killer or an arsonist. But in that case I wouldn't care, would I?

 

[Gingersnap]

You are entitled to your opinion. What I mention is that for some reason it is okay to use the catholic church as a example and it always seems to be in a negative way.... Gosh what does that remind me of hhhmmmmm. I do not presume to understand other religions enough to comment intelligently on their core beliefs. I ask only that you examine your motives for using this example. I have had to listen to slams and lampoons against the church all my life. To you it may be overly sensitive to me it is a matter of respect. If you look above in other posts you will see what I mean. Open that door and see what comees out.

 

[Gaucho]

Ginger, I'm not sure if you're talking to me or Never or both here, but let me try to address the issue for you. I am a lifelong Catholic and I'm assuming from your posts that you are, too. And the fact of the matter is, I don't know why Never chose to use the Catholic Church as one of her examples in illustrating her point. Maybe she'll hop on here in a bit and tell us. Regardless, her statement about the church's beliefs in this matter is true. She could just as easily have said that the Catholic Church believes in abstinence instead of using birth control or that the church is staunchly pro-life in regards to abortion. Both statements would be equally true. And this is not just my opinion.

So, my question is this: Why do you feel that her use of this statement is a slam against the church?

BTW - I'm not doing this to provoke or piss you off and I don't know if there is some history between the two of you that I'm unaware of. I would really like to understand your viewpoint on this.

 

[Pyper]

Jabberwocky

Hi everbody, I'm new to the message boards, though I've been hanging around this site since forever. What I wanted to say is, for all you people who have read "Through the Looking Glass" (in which The Walrus and the Carpenter appears, or is that Alice in Wonderland?), does anybody question the morality in the poem The Jabberwocky?
In The Jabberwocky, a man warns his son of a ferocious monster (you guessed it, the Jabberwocky) who terrorizes the forest. Curiously, the man then leaves his son to face the Jabberwocky alone. (Moral oddity #1). The son ends up killing the Jabberwocky as soon as it appears and runs home to his proud father. What I want to know is, why do we never get to hear the Jabberwocky's side of it? The poor guy doesn't get a word in edgewise before the boy chops his head off. And in the illustration, the Jabberwocky appears to be wearing a vest. If he wears clothes, doesn't that mean he is intelligent? Has anybody (well, you Lewis Carroll fans anyway) ever been bothered by this before? Or am I just an anal retentive neurotic can't-think-of-any-more-adjectives person?

 

[Aranian]

Never, you cashier in a grocery store? CUB Foods was the worst working experience in my short career, Ringing surely people and bratty kids through, while answering those self-important jerks on the phone for minimum wage. Gotta love the hold button.

Anyways, to answer your question: the thought controls the actions so of course the thought is always more important.

 

[Svedish_Chef]

Your boss is a pain!

The walrus... at least he did it even though he regretted it later

God I love oysters!


And Never very interesting

Da chef

 

[FlamingoBlue]

As for me....

I favor the carpenter. At least he is honest about his feelings. The poor walrus would have been, too, had he not been so conflicted that he cried after he ate the oysters. At least the carpenter isn't a hpocrite.

I guess I look at things a little differently. Its not so much what you preach, its what you practice. There is nothing inherently 'wrong" with eating oysters, although stealing them isn't too cool. But to steal them, covet them, gorge yourself on them AND then to cry about it and expect expiation is rediculous. (Have I gotten off the subject? Its late and I'm tired).

Insofar as the Catholic Church is concerned, Jews can out-guilt Catholics, any day. Just read my thread about fidelity and cybersex.

Good thread, Never!!!

blue

 

[Gingersnap]

AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Edited by Gingersnap on 09-19-2000 at 10:15 PM]

 

[FlamingoBlue]

What did you edit in your thread,

Ms. Gingersnap?? I mean, you couldn't have mispelled AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH, could you? (I probably did, right)?

blue

 

[Never]

Wow. Is this thread still around? I assumed it would drop to the bottom without me bringing it back up. Hmm, now I see the addictiveness of meaningful posts.

Anyhow.
Kitten Eyes: "But I don't like oysters and for some reason, always thought Never was a brunette (or is it brownie), so my opinion doesn't count anyway. "
Nope, I'm so Aryan/Anglo-Saxon/Upper Middle Class white bread has more flavor than me. I've never had oysters so my opinion doesn't count either.

CreamyLady: "Personally, I agree. The sins of commission at least have the virtue of action.
The sins of omission do, indeed, lay eggs of regret under the skin."
Interesting how quickly this became a question about 'sin'. There was no religious sin committed; I don't really orient my moral compass by any religion so I never considered being a question about sin. However, if you were angry with someone and you wanted to, say, run them over with your car would you do so because to not would 'lay eggs of regret'?
While neither the thought nor the action is honorable, one makes you a less than perfect human being - the other a homicidal maniac.

Gingersnap: "Covert attacks on the catholic religion are not new but I am surprised at you being the author of one. Or am I just talking to the Walrus?"
"What I mention is that for some reason it is okay to use the catholic church as a example and it always seems to be in a negative way.... Gosh what does that remind me of hhhmmmmm."
'Covert attacks'? To be honest, I'm somewhat confused about your assumption. Does the Catholic Church not hold this belief? I'll admit, I've never been part of a Catholic Church but I remember being taught this in a Protestant church as well. To characterize my comment as a negative one is something more than a little stretch though. If you read through my post you'll find I never advocate or dismiss any of the opinions and certainly not the people or institutions that have them.

The purpose for my question was to find out what others believe, not to start a debate on how my beliefs are the correct ones. While we're at it: You never did answer the question.


So.. ahh.. I have to go to work now. I guess I'll get back to this thread later.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am the Egg Man.
We am the Egg Man.
I am the Walrus!

 

[insideShiraz]

Pyper...

All of this got me thinking about Jabberwocky as well! Someone once told me that the book is a chess game.

"I could've been the Walrus"- Ferris Buehler...

 

[Pyper]

Inside...

Yes, "Through the Looking Glass", in which the Jabberwocky appears, is patterned after a chess game. Many of the characters represent chess pieces, like the White Knight and the Queens. However, I'm not sure if you could actually play a real game following the plot of the book...I think it's more of a metaphor. Alice starts out as a "pawn" and becomes a "queen". I dunno, I studied it in school a bit.

 

[insideShiraz]

I dunno'...

Pyper,

I think I could play this book with an Italian open...

but seriously, thanks...

Do you like Terry Gilliam movies?...

 

[Pyper]

Hmm, Terry Gilliam movies...

Well, I love Monty Python, although I always thought the animation was freakish.

Why do you ask?

 

[Svedish_Chef]

Cause we want you... I mean to know.

What film has Terry Gilliam done anyway? Splitting heirs? What exactly?

Monty python fan but I cant name any of "his" films off the top of my head.

 

[Guest]

If I Was A Carpenter...

Hush, my children. The Cheshire Cat has all the answers.

The Walrus (coo coo ca-choob)
xx