A biblical story, naturally.
Once upon a time, there was a guy who had clear political convictions. Not that he let them get in the way of having fun or getting laid, but he was quite outspoken about the matters of the world – especially Slovenian politics. But he was a fun guy to be around. A party animal that could hold his liquer. But eventually he settled down and like most of his student colleagues ended up in the media world. Not surprisingly he chose to write for a magazine that more or less echoed his political views and which he read avidly alerady as a student. Predictabily, he was slightly out of his depth at first and when his editors taksed him with digging up the dirt on the mayor of a certain Central European capitol, he turned to a colleague of his working for another media company and asked him if there is a person in the city administration which could spill the beans of mayor’s alleged misuse of public funds or some other juicy details. Now, our hero was a complete greenhorn back then and of course didn’t know that sources are not shared but must be found – or, as it happens in most cases – sources themselves find journalists.
But hey! You live and you learn. So he kept on working, gaining experience and bettering his articles. The political and media world around him, though, reached boiling point as several hundred journalists from all walks of life signed a petition claiming government pressures and even censorship. Did we say “all walks of life”? Not really. A small-but-significant portion of journalists, mostly from our hero’s magazine and other media of similar political alignment did not sign the petition, but instead wrote a counter-petition, an “Ethical Call To Professionalism” in which they denounced the original petition and its signatories. Our hero, possibly still being rather fresh and idealistic, signed this counter-petition together with his colleagues from the magazine.
But Fortune is a fickle lady and owners of the parent company of his magazine (which just happened to be the country’s most influential daily newspaper) had a political change of heart and started attacking the government they previsouly supported. Eventually things started to change at our hero’s magazine as well, as the owners – amid outcries of censorship, similar to those which the magazine denounced earlier – replaced the editors of the magazine and (by extension) changed the political profile of the magazine as well. And within months the magazine ran a story uncovering a network of nepotism and cronyism surrounding and leading up to the prime minister of the country, connecting him to a construction scandal which rattled the country weeks earlier. But as the magazine’s circulation was somewhat low (it wasn’t big to start with, but as a result of editoral changes it dropped even further, losing hard-core readers), an abstract of the story was run in the daily newspaper as well. And lo! behold! One of the two authors turns out to be our hero.
No one knows exactly what happened. Did he realise the error of his previous ways or was he threatned into writing it? Or could it be that he is just a good adapter? Who knows. But I sure wouldn’t like to trade places with him at that particular table, because like J.C. in that olive grove 1975 years ago I’d have wished for that cup to be taken away from me.
Sometimes it is a true pleasure to read your stories. As in this case. Way to go
My Lord! You have a way with words. Ever thought about taking up writing for a living?
I’ll get my coat. (Do you get the comedy reference?)
@venera & Adriaan: I so agree!!! Love this, P!
@all: Thanks 😳
@Adriaan: Admittedly, I had to google it 🙂
@Mr.P: The Fast Show (from where I’ve nicked the phrase) was a BBC comedy phenomenon in the late ’90s. It had fans everywhere (including, bizarrely, Johnny Depp) who BEGGED to be in the last episode.
I’ll have to get you a DVD to sample.
Your reading of the Gospel according to Luke is flawed. Our hero is not the Lord! He isn’t Judas either, because he didn’t betray him for financial gain. He is Peter, who loved him, but betrayed him nevertheless ONLY after the conspiracy had happened and his own existence was now in danger:
Luke 22: 54 Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priest’s house. And Peter followed afar off. 55 And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them. 56 But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him. 57 And he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not. 58 And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not. 59 And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilaean. 60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. 61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. 62 And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.
Now, if we believe the newly discovered Gospel of Judas, both “our hero” and ASK live to tell the story, while “Mary Magdalene” weeps under the cross the very next day.
Our hero is most definitely not the Lord. Adriaan solved that one in his first comment when he addressed me properly 😉
As for the rest, you might even be correct, as apparently those who deny their previous masters go on to rule multinational corporations. And start a guilt-drive culture.
But as I said: I don’t know what motivated our hero to do what he did. I’m not even sure I actually want to know.