Life Through Catharsis: Comparing Novels

Waking is the first and last sensation a human being ever experiences. At the moment of conception, a human life springs into existence. When a human wakes from life into death, the shadows of sin-stained reality melt into clear purity of existence. Sue Monk Kidd’s “The Secret Life of Bees” and Leo Tolstoy’s “Childhood” tap into the mystery of waking and sleeping. Kidd and Tolstoy explore children’s coming of age, waking from naiveté into maturity.
        “The Secret Life of Bees” falls under the bildungsroman category, since the novel follows the main character’s personal maturation. “Childhood” also explores maturation, but in the autobiographical novel form. Tolstoy aligned the child’s growth to personal growth, loosely basing the novel on autobiographical facts. In contrast, Kidd’s novel was fictional, not autobiographical.
        The novels’ content differs more widely than the genre. Kidd’s and Tolstoy’s main characters are believable, but view the world through radically different perspectives. Kidd’s protagonist, Lily Owens, is shaped by a loveless father and haunted by a mother’s death. Conversely, love and contentment coddle Tolstoy’s main character, Vladimir. “The Secret Life of Bees” purports to address tragedy, while “Childhood” recounts comfort and ease. The difference between the supporting characters echoes the difference between the main characters. Affection characterizes Vladimir’s tutor; animosity fills Lily’s father.
        As might be expected from the divergent time periods and translation, the diction, syntax, and style share little. Tolstoy writes properly lengthy sentences disclosing superfluous as well as necessary details. Details are sparsely chosen in Kidd’s work, serving to mystify rather than clarify; thus, the sentences are shorter and more rhythmic. Kidd adores monosyllabic and simple words, befuddling the reader into believing the story is straightforward. Straightforward syntax and diction are lacking in Tolstoy’s work, but the story is less complicated than “The Secret Life of Bees.”
        “The Secret Life of Bees” derives complexity from the protagonist’s tangled anguish. Kidd’s worldview is harsh and stark, striking tragedy straight-on. God enters only as a convention the protagonist has been trained to consider as a source of comfort. But God brings no comfort to Lily. God does not figure directly in Tolstoy’s “Childhood.” Instead, spiritual content creeps into the portrayal of Vladimir’s tutor, Karl Ivanitch. Ivanitch represents God. God and Ivanitch are loving and firm, faithful and upright, worthy of awe and worthy of obedience.
The love in Tolstoy’s work reaches out to lonely and fulfilled readers. Kidd’s harsh, matter-of-fact delivery threatens to alienate readers. The lonely sometimes prefer to remain complacent rather than experience catharsis through pain. The fulfilled readers are repulsed by the death and bitterness expressed so callously from the opening of “The Secret Life of Bees.” Tolstoy, by vividly depicting love, touches the heart’s yearning for affection. Lonely readers are attracted to love; fulfilled readers appreciate an extra dose of affection.
The lonely and the fulfilled can benefit from “The Secret Life of Bees.” Although “Childhood” may be a more comfortable read, catharsis can be more beneficial than comfort. Bottling up emotions stifles the human spirit. The occasional release of pain allows humanity to breathe freer. Better still, pain alerts the spirit to a wrong needing to be righted. Pain may feel like a harsh awakening, but consciousness is to be preferred to comfort. The release of pain wakes the soul from death to eternal life; the release of pain through catharsis can wake the soul from complacency to courage.

Motive

In Lewis Carroll's classic nonsense novel "Alice in Wonderland", Alice stands at a crossroads, uncertain of which path to choose. So she asks the Cheshire Cat which way to go. The Cheshire Cat insightfully replies, "That depends on where you want to go." 

Without knowing which way she wanted to go, Alice could go nowhere - she was stuck. An action cannot be taken in the absence of motivation: every action has a motivation behind it. 

There are two types of motives - moral, and immoral. Moral motives can lead to immoral results, as demonstrated by Les Miserables. Jean val Jean desired to feed his sister's starving family - his motivation was pure. But the theft he committed to fulfill that motive was wrong. Conversely, immoral motives can lead to good results. Pharaoh's refusal to release the Israelites from Egyptian slavery showed forth God's great power, through the plagues. 

If both types of motives - moral and immoral - can lead to bad results, then does it matter which motivates our actions? Yes, it matters a lot. God weighs the motives of the heart in weighing the action accompanying the motive. The Pharisees' righteousness was counted as filthy rags, because their motivation was pride. The tax collectors' repentance, though seemingly paltry compared to the Pharisees', was motivated by love for God. The attitudes of the heart, or motives, often differentiate between good and bad actions.

God is weaving all history into a tapestry of grace, regardless of evil or righteous motives. So let each of us play a role in Hisstory, doing our best to keep our motivations pure, to walk in the path of the righteous, and to remember that with God, nothing is impossible. 

The Present

In popular children's film Kung Fu Panda, a character remarks: "Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift. That is why it is called the 'present.'"


God designed humans to experience life through the present. Unlike God, humanity is incapable of experiencing time as a whole; instead, every individual experiences life as a series of successive moments. The present is continually flowing, suspending the individual between the past and the future. Enjoyment can be found only in the present, whether by enjoying a meal, writing a paper, or fellowshipping with friends. Even looking forward to the future is a hope experienced in the present; wistfully looking back to the past in retrospect still is experienced in the present. 


But how often does humankind get caught up in the past or the future? Victims of tragedy or a dreary lifestyle sigh for the past, while the young and hopeful peer into the future and chase the horizon. Sin often finds a foothold in retrospect or prospect; procrastination and despair assume the hope or desperation of tomorrow, while wishful thinking looks backward to "the good days". 


Even Kung Fu Panda offers a lesson to every human being: live in the present. Anticipate and prepare for the future, remembering that the present is moving toward the future. Look back on the past with wise retrospect, learning from past mistakes and using the acquired knowledge to aid in wise present decisions. 


For no matter how hard humanity tries, the future is always ahead and the past is always behind. God desires His people to make the most of the gift of today. This day - this hour - this moment - is designed for us to enjoy and excel in.

Roman Opalka and Infinity

Roman Opalka died on August 6th, leaving a legacy of longing. Opalka, a painter who yearned for infinity, spent the last 46 years of his life in painting numbers on canvases. He painted numbers all the way from 1 to 5,500,000. 

Why? Infinity intrigued him, drawing him irresistibly to its pulsating fascination. He yearned to get as close to infinity as he possibly could. 

Some may think Roman Opalka's enterprise was silly, some may think it was admirable. But Roman Opalka was expressing the same longing for infinity that all of us have. Sometimes a beautiful piece of music arouses the yearning for infinity - sometimes it's a lovely landscape - sometimes it's a well-written book. But all human beings possess  that same longing for the infinite, the perfect, the beautiful - a desire placed in human hearts by the infinite, perfect, beautiful Creator.

The Foundation of Government

Why do we establish governments at all? I’d contend that the two foundational principles of government are order and justice.

1: Order

Edmund Burke, an English thinker considered the father of modern conservatism, said “Good order is the foundation of all things.” However disorganized life may feel, order is still the foundation. To better understand why order matters, imagine what happens without order. As you know, it’s unpleasant and inconvenient when your house becomes disorganized and messy. On the bigger scale, the same principle of order holds true. Disorderly governments like many in South America struggle to survive against the onslaught of anarchy. We need order almost as much as we need water in order to survive. Violence and chaos flourish where order withers. But if we’re to have order, we need someone or something to enforce order. The house doesn’t keep itself tidy. Similarly, without government, chaos and anarchy reign. Society needs an agent to establish order. We institute government to enforce order and protect its citizens. Why? Order gives us security and allows us to walk the streets without fear. The absence of order is the presence of terror and insecurity.

Order is necessary for government. But it’s not sufficient.

2: Justice

Order without justice is tyranny. North Korea, for instance, has a lot of order, but no concern for justice. The result is oppression. Justice and order must both be valued by the government.

Justice is an integral part of our human identity … and for good reason. None of us are perfect. We all make mistakes and do wrong. The reason we need justice is to resolve conflict between criminals and victims. When a burglar commits theft, his crime must be punished. Justice counteracts crime by promising a just reward for every deed, good or bad. What happens without justice? Look at countries like those found in South America. Corruption, terror, and tragedy have taken over. But when justice is upheld and government fulfills its duty, French philosopher Frederic Bastiat argues, the people are happy and fulfilled; they are able to pursue happiness, enjoy individuality. “It is under the law of justice, … that every man will attain to the fullness of his worth, to all the dignity of his being[.]”

Incidentally, order and justice have a semi-symbiotic relationship. Order is a prerequisite for justice, and without justice, order eventually collapses. How? Let’s first look at how justice helps order survive in the long term. Before the French Revolution, there was order but no justice. The peasants revolted against injustice, and order was destroyed. If justice had been in place, the peasants would have had no legitimate reason to revolt. Order without justice is brittle and fragile. Order with justice is strong.

On the other hand, order is a prerequisite for justice – without some sort of order, justice cannot be enforced.

How does this work practically? How do we keep the government accountable to these high ideals? I would recommend a constitutional republic.

The government should answer first to the highest law of justice, and then listen to the people. Why? When the people’s voice is ignored, power is arbitrary and concentrated. The danger of concentrated power is that it breeds corruption. As Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The more power you have in the hands of few people, the more likely it is that corruption will exist. Distributing that power in the hands of the people avoids the danger of concentrated power.

Yet the government’s first priority should be justice, hopefully as embodied in its constitution. The people can make tragic mistakes, and can’t be the final answer to all the government’s accountability problems.

The government should be accountable first and foremost to justice, and next to the people.

Aristotle's "Politics"

The pompous, patronizing style that Aristotle uses in “Politics” could easily disguise the beauty of his ideas. In “Politics” he lays out things relating to the “polis”, or the city state – from listing the ways to govern different kinds of governments to asking if music should be part of education. Let’s look at two main points Aristotle covers.

1: Types of government

The essence of government is authority. Aristotle recognizes this and breaks down the use of authority into three main categories.

- Familial

Aristotle held the view that families should be ruled by the man of the house. Early on, he said, “the wife should be treated as a citizen of a free state, the children should be under kingly power.” Women were created to help and assist their husbands, working diligently at home. The children obeyed, since Aristotle argued that youth had much courage but little understanding. It was the men governed households.

- Herile

Aristotle contends that some were created to be slaves, and others to rule, according to the nature of things. Perhaps biased by the customs of his time, he failed to understand that God didn’t create anyone for slavery.

- Political

In addition to isolating a few main types of government, Aristotle subdivided those main types even further. But right now we’ll just take a look at the four he presents.

• Monarchy

In a monarchy, the semi-absolute kingship is passed from father to child.

• Oligarchy

Basically, this is rule by the rich.

• Democracy

The poor have the biggest say in a democracy.

• “Free state”

A strong middle class to balance out the rich and the poor composes this so-called “free state”. Popular sovereignty guides the government of the free state, according to Aristotle.

2: Best form of political government

Aristotle argues for popular sovereignty in terms of pure practicality. He says, “the judgment of an individual must necessarily be perverted if he is overcome by anger or any other passion; but it would be hard indeed if the whole community should be misled by anger.” An individual ruler might have a bad day with anger, and cause the government to violate justice for no other reason than his own varying emotions. But when is everybody angry all at once? The sheer number of people in popular sovereignty outweighs extreme ideas. Better yet, popular sovereignty provides a huge diversity of opinions to guide the government. Similarly to how a hand, foot, or eye by itself doesn’t make up a body, just a few people ruling over the entire population can’t see the big picture. But when you bring in popular sovereignty, there are a multitude of perspectives.

Popular sovereignty provides a big picture of justice, kind of like the story of the blind men and elephant. One feels the elephant’s trunk and decides the elephant is like a snake. Feeling the elephant’s leg, another says the elephant is like a pillar. Another feels the tusks, thinking an elephant is like a spear. We see the elephant only when we put the different perspectives together. Similarly, different perspectives are invaluable in government. Aristotle said that “If [justice] … [is] to be found in democracy, … [it] will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost.”

Based on the ‘checks and balances’ that popular sovereignty provides, Aristotle concludes that in general the populace should guide the government’s decisions.

"Lord of the Flies" - more than a novel

A casual observer, reading through the first few pages of Golding’s “Lord of the Flies” would expect a kind of Robinson Crusoe tale of adventure on an island. But as the story draws you in, you realize with sickening horror the reality of fallen humanity. Sobered, you awaken with a deepened appreciation for a just government.

Let’s look at a few themes from Lord of the Flies key to this year’s resolution.

1: Man is fallen

At first there was order on the island. The boys stood under the rule of their leader, Ralph. But dissension and disorder crept into their ranks. Fear manifested itself in the form of a nightmarish “beast” that terrified the “littluns”. One boy began to grasp what haunted them, and, petrified, said, “Maybe there is a beast. … Maybe it’s only us.”

Then bloodthirstiness and savagery overtook the boys. By the end of the book, “Ralph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man’s heart,”

A nauseating symbol for Satan, the Lord of the Flies, hisses to the appalled Simon, “You knew, didn’t you? I’m part of you? … I’m the reason why it’s not go? Why things are as they are?”

They learned that the heart of man is desperately wicked, all because of the Lord of the Flies who once hissed temptation to a woman in a garden.

Falleness taints all of our actions, even as it twisted the antagonist’s mind, and silenced the consciences of his followers.

2: Order and Justice are necessary for survival

The hero, Ralph, tried to establish rules and order. But no one followed them. During one particular meeting, Ralph attempted once more to keep order. “shouted Ralph, ‘You’re breaking the rules!’ ‘Who cares?’ ‘Because rules are the only thing we’ve got!’”

Ralph knew that when order was shattered, survival was put at risk. Because they neglected order, the signal fire went out, and they missed an opportunity of a ship rescuing them. Their carelessness allowed a fire to ravage the forest and kill a boy. Order was lost; survival was endangered.

Worse, the antagonist, Jack, set himself up as a tyrant. He violated justice – two boys were killed, and more would have died if it hadn’t been for their sudden rescue by grownups. This was too late for the three boys whose deaths had proven that without order and justice, survival is at jeopardy.

3: Popular Sovereignty is unreliable

The boys on the island initially voted for Ralph as leader. Before long, though, they began to listen to the call of the dark side. Within a few days they surrendered to barbarism and deserted order and Justice in order to embrace disorder and injustice.

It was the boys’ choice that directed the government. But the consequences of their wrong choices far outweighed the good choice that they first made. Popular Sovereignty is unreliable because it relies on the fickle nature of man.