| contents | the challenge for wrath - view bramble's phases - view by phases |
| the official hierarchy |
back to phase menu
Original Question: Response: What is the difference between wrath and anger? In Webster's dictionary, as Eed so nicely provided, wrath is defined as forceful anger. But I beg to differ, not only claiming that the dictionary will deceive you, but also that wrath and anger have little similarities. I shall defer the answer to a higher authority than such a mundane object as a dictionary; myself. As the Apostle of Wrath, I would like to think I could explain the subtleties of my position. A dictionary provides definition alone, not allowing for the subtle nuances and delightful circumstantial reasoning for the words they wish to define. Anger and wrath, though related, are not at all one and the same. Firstly, it is possible to have one without another. Though one may determine another, it is not necessary for the other to be present. For example, if one is wrathful, when angered, their wrath may be induced. However, one may be wrathful without being angry. Wrath may just be in one’s nature; coming naturally without provocation, and simply serve as a divine fury, as the Apostle of Wrath serves as Hell’s own “avenging angel”. But I see I still haven't touched what I believe you meant by the question. Anger is an emotion, a result of countless possibilities. Anger is not a commendable vice, one does not pat a drunk who beats his wife in blind drunken rage on the back in congratulations. One does not feel pride in a young man, pumped high on testosterone who picks a fight simply because he feels he can. Anger can be induced in the lowest scum to the most righteous individual; it is not the cause of the anger that constitutes wrath, but how it is dealt with. A not-so-pleasant past may allow anger to dwell in one’s heart. This anger may escape through physical actions, but it still remains anger, sometimes evolving into vengeance. Thus, anger is closely associated with revenge. Like said, a past event creates anger, and the anger develops into a want of revenge, which is expressed with physical actions. Wrath, on the other hand, has more depth than mere anger. To be wrathful is to take great pleasure in the suffering of others. To induce one’s dislike and hatred dispassionately is the highest achievement of wrath; when one can handle their anger and rage without taking a personal offense to it, and simply relish in the pain of their victim for whatever the cause, they have proved themselves wrathful. Like with all things, if something pleases one, then they will do their best to gain it. Whether it be inflicting physical pain, starting wars and battles, taunting angered souls, etc. Wrath is more than anger; in fact, it feeds on anger. The lust of revenge, the anger, the hatred, it feeds my soul and strengthens me. Which is another reason why someone who is wrathful enjoys being so. Not only do they gain pleasure, but also strength. To take personal offense and create a vendetta, or revenge in one’s passing of wrath, is a weak trait. To be truly strong, Wrath inflicts reckoning, fear, and pain for the sheer act, and yes, the resulting divine satisfaction. So I leave you with this, minions of Hell. Can such a book that does not have 'nork' within its pages really be believed? The key is to look beyond the superficial reasoning, to the core of the issue at hand. May the true distinction between blind rage, which is indeed given its name because the act can be completed without thought or conviction, and wrath have been clarified. Indeed, to behold true wrath is an awe-inspiring thing. -Smiles, eyes burning.- And yes, Eed, I added the bit about the dictionary definition just to bend the steel of the rule without actually breaking it. -Twitches brows and winks.- |
