Eager+Fools

I can't help but think that I've seen this quote somewhere before, and, indeed, I think that there is much truth in it: "For fools rush in where angels fear to tread" (625). When I think of "fools rushing in," first of all I think of the Elvis song... then I picture somebody rushing into the middle of a busy street, someone dashing into the front lines of a battle, or someone running into a burning building while the angelic, prudent people sit outside and wait to see what happens. I can't help but think that, sometimes, being a fool is not such a bad thing. That's where all of our war heroes, firefighters, and police officers come from, right? They put themselves in the way of danger and do things that other more cautious people would fear to do. They are not only conquering their own fears, if they have any, but they also become models for the average people by confronting their worst fears. Are these "fools" really fools or are they heroes? Are they heroes if they survive, and fools if they die? Or are they just eager, thrill-seekers? What is the distinguishing factor between a fool and a hero? 1204776642

I'm not sure Pope is talking about firefighters. (Plus I think angels are with people most when they are in danger) Trying to retrace who Pope is calling a fool, I believe he is talking about, "The bookful blockhead, ignorantly read, with loads of learned lumber in his head..." (612-613) This critic is vain, acts on his vanity (not his adrenaline) and therefore he is a fool. As far as the place issue goes, Pope says, "No place so sacred from such fops is barr'd..." (622) He goes on to name a few places that the vain critic would criticize. At the altar the critics would still be themselves, and perhaps still in hell? Where angels fear to tread? Pope could just be showing two opposite ends of the extreme, and he couldn't have just said hell. That would be too easy. Overall I believe he is talking about how nowhere can a true bad critic hold himself back if he is not conscous of what he does. But Pope is difficult so I could be completely off. If so, please, feel free to say so! 1205070288

I think there is a very large difference between being a fool and being courageous. Firefighters are courageous; they are not fools. Firefighters realize the danger that they are running into each time they enter a burning building. Fools enter because they aren't aware of what's on the other side. What Pope is saying here is not criticism on firefighters, war heroes, or police officers, for they are all courageous, but not naive. A fool, rather is someone who eagerly runs into something dangerous because he doesn't realize what could be on the otherside. In this way, this line fits nicely into Pope's "Essay." The fools lack knowledge. Fools who are critics may rush into a difficult poem not realizing that they lack the proper knowledge to correctly interpret it and judge it. Kle, you said that critics don't act on their adrenaline, but I disagree. I think the false confidence and a small bit of learning (remember, "A little learning is a dangerous thing!") can serve as a bit of adrenaline for foolish critics to rush into these tough poems. Foolish poets may rush into a difficult poetry form or topic without realizing that they too lack knowledge. 1205189071

Well, I am not so sure that fools are never aware of "what's on the other side." How can they be called fools if they don't have a clue about a possible danger? Wouldn't that make them innocent? But then, there's also a category for those who just act rashly without giving anything a second thought, so I am in agreement with you there, Kho. I, personally, don't think firefighters are fools, but can understand how the thought of them being so could arise. It is really about what one deems important: if you hold your own life as you highest value, you'd think firefighters are fools; however, if you think that saving another is more important, you just see the courageous act. I like when KKr asks, "Are these 'fools' really fools or are they heroes?" When I think of fools, I admit I think about fools in love. They may be stupid for taking the risk of getting their hearts broken, but if they never try, they never know, right? If everyone is always extremely cautious, no one will ever know our human limits or the possibilities we have in store. 1205273623

I don’t think that Pope is talking about heroes and the difference between them and fools. I think it is correct to say that Pope is criticizing the critics. I think what the part about fools rushing in where angels fear to tread is an analogy for some bad critics to jump and start making accusations and ripping apart some piece of poetry while the good ones or maybe other poets sit back, try to use some of their education, or maybe look up a reference or two and then make a decision. I also agree that Pope is basically ripping on the bad critics for being too arrogant and letting a little bit of an education be the basis for all of their critiques. But, as a question, do you think that this works both ways? Do poets ever let their little bit of learning get in the way of their poetry. Would Pope be ok with a poet making an incorrect reference to a historical fact or person within their poem because they are too arrogant to really dig deep and find the right facts? Does this fall in the whole poetic license category or should Pope have done a little ripping on other poets who maybe messed up some details or intertextuality references? In my opinion, if you’re gonna rip on the critics, you gotta rip on the poets and I personally don’t think that Pope focused enough on the shortcomings of his fellow poets unless he also wrote //An Essay on Really Bad Poetry// that we didn’t read and I don’t know about. 1205273963

I agree that Pope is not making any critisizms toward any of our everyday heros such as police officers and firefighters, but is instead commenting on how some people are quick to judge without having any qualifications themselves. As to your question, kli, I think that some authors are arrogant and make incorrect statements and make things up. But I do not think that any GOOD author/poet who really loves what they do and are completely dedicated would make such errors on purpose. I think that a good writer would want to take the time to perfect their writing. But, yes, I think it could go both ways in general. 1205366790

Well to tell the difference between a fool and a hero all comes from who you're talking to, and who is writing the history. Take many of our famous generals, whether thet be from the revolutionary, civil, or great wars. Things worked out for us in the end and if you read a lot of history, you will notice that many of the long-shot tactics that worked from our generals are called "Bold" moves. Not stupid or crazy, like we may have called the tactics of generals on the opposing forces, but "bold." The winners write the history basically. In more modern times we have many common everyday heroes. Firefighters, Pilots, Soldiers. Many of these people are true heroes because of their intentions, but couldn't some be fools for the risks they take. Many have families and children at home, but they still do what they do. It's all depends on the way you look at it. I think the common thing to do today is to call nearly all people who fall for a cause heroes more to honor their families than the actual person.1205368479

It is kind of difficult to understand where Pope is coming from when he says "For fools rush in where angels fear to tread". I think he's trying to say that there's a difference between acting on your beliefs in a righteous way, and acting on your beliefs purely based on emotion. Obviously, when there's a purpose behind voicing your opinion on something, you are in the right, and you should be able to say what you please. When your statement is simply based on emotion and opinion and how you feel about something without thinking about how other people may view it, then "the angels aren't with you", so to speak. There's a difference between not liking a well-written poem and saying, "I don't particularly like this poem, but the writing is incredibly well-done,", and saying, "I hate this poem and therefore the author is a moron". I think Pope may just be saying to be careful not to criticize something without being able to back that criticism up. 1205372610

I don't think that Pope necessarily means that angels will never go in, they just won't ever rush in. The way I think about it is that the distinction between the fool and the angel is how prudent either is. The angel enters when it is prudent and advantageous to do so; the fool rushes in whenever he wants whether it be prudent or imprudent. Although I'm not sure if Pope is a fool or an angel himself. His criticism of criticism just seems so arrogant, and he calls critics fools and coxcombs. It seems as if he is being rather imprudent in his own poem and therefore being a fool. But this is only by my interpretation of his line, he could have meant differently.1205374902

Though the people that you describe such as the firefighters and soldiers may be physcially rushing into a dangerous situation they are not fools solely because of the training and preparation that they have recieved to prepare them for this exact moment. They know what they are getting into, how to do it successfully, and they have the right equipment to do so. Though the situation may be dangerous they are as prepared as they are ever going to be for what is to come. Now a true fool would be somone who rushes into a dangerous situation with no training or expirence and is just relying on luck to make them successful. These are the types of fools that Pope talks about. They are rushing into their position as critic or poet with no background or knowledge and are thus making a grand mess of things as a result. user:DGr-c

I can really see the connection of fools, and would agree that it is certainly not always a bad thing to be a "fool" that is to rush in while others wait back. (especially in the context of the Elvis song, which is what also pops into my head) Looking at it this way I start to wonder if the standard format for the fool that we have been seeing all year might fit. That is, the fool that is really the only one who knows what he is talking about, and the only one speaking the truth. However given the context of Pope's essay I would say that he is being more critical of people who jump into something where they don't really know what they are talking about, like bad critics trying to critisize writing when they are not qualified to be critics. 1205382163

Yeah, I agree with jko's last line that Pope is saying that when we are not fully informed about a subject that we have not right to tell others that they are wrong or bad. Since we are not experts at a specific forum, we are not qualified to judge others. To go along with Jko's intial statement, I agree that a fool can be a positive thing. If we just look at King Lear, we can see that the jester or the fool was the only one who always spoke the truth and could see what was actually going on at all times. This the label of fool can almost be ironic for the fool was the one who was most knowledge, but again I do not think that this is the fool Pope is refering to. He is refering to some uninformed novice, not an experienced, informed person. Any other comments? 1205408161

The part that gets me is the word, "angels." I don't really like that he compares fools to angels. When I think of angels, the last thing that comes to mind is fear. I believe that we all have guardian angels. I believe that some people in our lives are God's angels, sent to us to help us learn something necessary in our lives. Angels are children of God, trusting in Him in all things, they do not fear. I think that angels don't question, like Clarence in the movie "It's a Wonderful Life." They just do as God wants without having to fear the world or anything else. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. I understand that Pope is just trying to make the point about how a fool will jump without thinking when they should tread carefully and be more cautious. Yet, this still bothers me. 1205415614

I think the difference between a fool and a hero is a fool goes into a situation unaware of the possible consequences while on the other hand, a hero does something brave being aware of things that can go wrong. However, Pope is trying to say that fools are quick to jump to conclusions while "angles" think before they make judgements. Often times, intelligent people are not quick to answer questions before giving them some thought. Also, fools make judgements about things without exploring them or even understanding them. For example, some people dislike a particular book because they misunderstand it. 1205433323

I definitely agree with what KSm said. It makes perfect sense if we apply it toward poets and critics as well. Fools are those who are quick to judge the works of other poets. They only criticize others and never look at themselves. I think that Pope is saying that fools are those who can't forgive wrongs. They make quick judgments and won't go back on them. Most critics don't think about the consequences that their criticism will have. Heroes on the other hand are the good critics who are very rare according to Pope. They are not blunt in their criticism because they look at the affect that it is going to have. They are heroes of the literary world. 1205460221

You are a fool in Pope's mind if you are stubborn in your beliefs, even when they are completely unfounded. He makes continuous references to literary critics of the past who deserve our respect, because though they criticized others, they did so with dignity and respect. They knew what they were talking about and would surely have taken back a remark upon later judgment if so warranted. Fools then do not understand what these past critics did. They criticize just for criticism's sake. Maybe they criticize what they themselves can not do. Whatever their reasons for criticism, they go about it with tactless, egotistical manners, giving Pope reason for his harsh words. 1205465027

This quote can be analyzed in so many ways, but it amazes me how it can be taken out like this and with brief understanding of the essay, understand what he is talking about. Someone else brought up the idea that angels are with us the most often when we are in danger or in dangerous situations, so then why would they be afraid to tread somewhere? I think his point is that the fool goes into this territory that is illogical, and in this essay the fool can be the critic. A bad or arrogant critic will take his criticism to a place where "angels fear to dread" because it is stupid. The critic may take his/her criticism entirely onto someone else or into an entirely different situation because they are full of themselves and believe they are right, when really they are just putting themself in a place where they are not being good critics. 1205466993