Thursday, November 12, 2015

Saints' Insides, Part 1


Milton wrote his great epic, so he said, to “assert th’eternal Providence / And justify the ways of God to man.”  What it says about my theology, psychology, or spirituality I do not know, but for me the problem of theodicy has never been a particularly compelling one.  Moreover (though this is a separate issue), I am not convinced that attempting to assert God’s care for men, or to defend his actions in general, is a particularly fruitful way of proceeding for a Christian literary artist.  What comes off as majestic in painting or sculpture is apt on the page to seem overbearing, so that for every cool-headed Stanley Fish there is a legion of underdistinguished and underdistinguishing Keatses claiming Milton for the devil’s party.

Much more helpful, I think—if we are to talk about evangelization through art—than the image of a good God is the image of the good man—or it would be, could be, if it were ever done well—for two reasons.  On the one hand, it is broadly helpful (as Aristotle says) to begin not with things that are best known in themselves, but things best known to us.  God, in His simplicity, must be much better integrated (if I may speak so without heresy) than even the simplest of the saints; but we, fools that we are, have a better chance of understanding the saint than of understanding God.

The second reason is related to and perhaps an elaboration of the first.  The literary saint can evangelize in a way that portraits of God cannot, because in comprehending the saint the emotions as well as the intellect come into play.  God, though He is Love, is Love in such a peculiar way as to make our attempts at explaining Him either saccharine or paradoxical; and the language of paradox is suited at best for poetry.  I am not convinced that a metaphysical conceit or an objective correlative is much good for getting at God either; but they seem rather more plausible candidates, belonging as they do to the more pictoral or even musical side of art, than an extended narrative with or without an argument-driven plot.  Impressionism and philosophy are the best we are likely to do in coming to grips with God in art; open-faced philosophy has no place in literature, and impressionism is unsatisfying over an epic or novelistic expanse.

Dostoyevsky of course spoils my point by using both.   
But in The Brother Karamazov (to take one well-known example) 
the characters are so strongly developed that he can get away with it.

Rather than impressionism or philosophizing, the novel calls for activity on the part of the central characters, and most importantly the interior activity of the most central character of all.  The protagonist of a modern novel or drama is generally supposed to be quite active in this way—“conflicted” is one word sometimes used, approvingly or not.  It is generally supposed that the more conflicted a character is, the more interesting he or she will be; if a central character has no great moral conflict, we consider the work in which they appear to be of less artistic significance.  This is why Nolan’s Batman series and Inception are generally given greater respect than, say, anything Indiana Jones or Star Wars: all the films are obviously designed to entertain, and to entertain the masses; but only some of them pretend to do more—and they pretend to more in no small part by offering central characters who are more “interesting” than Jones or Luke Skywalker.

Thus, it seems that, though the saint—or, since so many examples come from the realm of the secular, the Hero with a capital H—may be more understandable than God, he is not necessarily more respectable.  Indeed, he is hardly more likeable; for the same people who take exception to God’s judgments and His tendency to recline in eternal bliss also find the Hero’s moral self-assuredness and invulnerability to temptation galling.  We do not like Aeneas; and we only find Luke and Indiana Jones tolerable because they are rogues as well as Heroes.

My question then—my problem, as a literary artist—is whether and how it is possible to create a Hero, and indeed a Saint, who is neither a rogue, nor a naïve, nor a bore.

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Of Men and Melon Ballers



Now that the dreaded comps demon is behind me I have time for nonoptional things, like seeing people, and optional ones, like reading Facebook.  And it has come to my attention, in the course of the latter—shall we say—activity, that certain of my friends were having quite a discussion about a certain post in The New York Times entitled “27 Ways to Be a Modern Man.”  (Admittedly, this was about a week ago.)  For the record, if any representative of the Times stumbles across the post, congratulations: you have succeeded in making a group of highly intelligent people very confused about whether or not this piece was intended as a parody.  Perhaps we have found the right wing (by which I really mean, the left wing) answer to Stephen Colbert?

In any case, I don’t mean to argue with the “27 Ways.”  Far be it from me, a woman (or girl) of no particular century (we are ageless and unique, to paraphrase Simon de Beauvoir), to suggest whether or not these are in fact representative ways of being manly in the twenty-first century.  I wouldn’t know, and I’m not sure my husband the medieval philosopher would be much help.

But—probably because I have been so completely immersed in preparation for my exams—it struck me in reading the Times piece that this list sounded familiar.  The author was definitely going for a particular overall impression—a man who is strong, sensitive, knowledgeable, and intelligent.  A family man, but suave.  A gunless man, equipped with melon ballers.  You get the picture.

It—not the actual picture, but the carefully poised contrasts—reminded me of something, possibly in a negative way.  Of Sir Thomas More.  Of Castiglione’s Il Cortegiano as translated by Hoby.  Of sprezzatura which is (in the imperfect English) “the true perfection” of a courtier, “a grace” which “ought to accompany all his doings, gestures, demeanors, … [and] motions”; “a sauce to everything, without the which all his other properties and good conditions were little worth,” which is above all bound up in the avoiding of that “sharp and dangerous rock, Affectation or curiosity,” and demands that its possessor

use in everything a certain Recklessness, to cover art withal, and seem whatsoever he doeth and sayeth to do it without pain, and (as it were) not minding it. … Therefore that may be said to be a very art that appeareth not to be art …

The Courtier, as this English translation was called, became the veritable Bible of the English gentleman: the perfect picture of the Renaissance Man—the original Renaissance Man.  (Similar things were happening in Italy, France, and Spain, but we didn’t take comps in those literatures, so why bother?  No word yet on whether or not China invented the Renaissance Man first.)

But this is all rather cold and academic compared to the personal examples and musings of Mr. Lombardi (himself clearly an Italian American—and with that name, possibly a distant relative of Castiglione’s, since the latter was born in Lombardy?).  So I propose, rather than elaborating on Castiglione/Hoby’s ”Courtier” at greater abstract length, to give you a portrait of a real early modern man of the courtier class who surely, like Sir Philip Sidney, “never stirred abroad without The Courtier in his pocket.”

27 Ways to Be an Early Modern Man

Early Modern Manhood demands the same virtues we English practiced in the days of Chaucer: namely, cleaving to whatever monarch seems most like to a true king, and one not prone to betraying one’s family in the process.  Verily doth fashion alter, and the sciences improve; nor are our manners and mode of discourse unchanged.  But the early modern man, imbued with both the wisdom of the ancients and the truths of Revelation, and bucklered with the New Learning, is as it were a Renaissance to himself, a little world reflecting back the great one.

1. When the early modern man fits shoes for his future spouse, he speaks in pidgin Dutch.  That way he can hide from her relatives, who are seeking to discover their secret love affair.

2. The early modern man’s confidence does not sink.  He one-ups Aeneas.  In fact, he has probably translated the Aeneid, in case his acquaintances needed any light vernacular reading.  All in his spare time, of course.

3. The early modern man is considerate. At the theater, he finds his ladies a seat above the stage, where everyone can see them.

4. The early modern man eats meat.  He does not have heart attacks or cancer, and knows how to get out of town when the plague is in.  Pleurisy, however, may be a real concern.

5. The early modern man knows how to hire and keep a good horse boy.

6. Before the early modern man retires, he makes sure that his wife and children have blown out the candles.  There’s nothing like a good fire to get one’s family up before the end of first sleep, and cleaning up the ash really cuts into second sleep.

7. The early modern man drinks beer with breakfast, lunch, and dinner, just like Queen Elizabeth.  Preferably double double brew, until it was outlawed, also by Queen Elizabeth.  Maybe even after that.

8. The early modern man uses the proper names for things. He will never import a French or Latin term where the Anglo-Saxon one will do.

9. Having a daughter die makes the early modern man write a poem.  Having a son die has the same effect.  Surprisingly, the early modern man likes his children, even when they die.

10. The early modern man wipes his dishes with crusts, and eats them, so as not to waste any food.

11. The early modern man would not be caught dead publishing his work—unless an error-ridden edition just so happened to be prereleased by his enemies, in which case it is clearly his duty, as admonished by his friends, to publish a corrected copy, which will sell out multiple editions and protect his honor.

12. The early modern man has lots of clean linen, and changes it every time a miasma arises.

13. The early modern man writes his own lute melodies, and probably plays them, but only for his closest friends and family.

14. The early modern man buys and sells horses and property.  Everything else is his steward’s business.

15. The early modern man keeps clean rushes on the floor.  The children love playing down there, and it takes longer to notice when one of the dogs forgets itself.

16. The early modern man sleeps with his wife so that she won’t freeze to death on cold winter nights.  He doesn’t need to worry about the door, because even his enemies know that they will DIE if they think about attacking his family, because he will defend his chamber exactly like Lancelot did.

17. The early modern man’s kitchen definitely contains a waffle iron, a deep fryer, twig whisks, scales, and a cheese grater—how else did you think he was able to pull off stuffed grouse, fully refeathered?  But he doesn’t know about any of this, because his cook takes care of things, and won’t stand interference in the kitchen.

18. The early modern man has seriously bought two shoehorns.  Shoes are too expensive not to take care of.

19. The early modern man makes sure his wife always has a nosegay to ward off disease, especially when she is pregnant, which is often.

20. On occasion, the early modern man writes tormented love lyrics.  No one is ever sure whether or not to take them literally, but that’s all part of the mystique.  His wife doesn’t seem to mind.  He’s also translated most of the psalms, from the original Hebrew.  In his spare time, again.

21. The early modern man admonishes his children for minor mistakes only if he thinks it will aid in their moral and intellectual development.  Usually it will.

22. The early modern man knows from whom to get the court gossip, and to whom not to tell it.  He is good at writing letters, and at destroying them.  He has friends in the Tower, and friends who used to be in the Tower, and probably friends who took a short walk in the Tower.

23. The early modern man has read everything by Petrarch.

24. The early modern man fells no need to check his points.

25. The early modern man has no use for villainous saltpeter. A sword is far more deadly, provided one knows how to use it (and he does), and hunting is more safely and sportingly done with the primitive weapons of his ancestors.

26. The early modern man associates tears with women, except when male friends are saying goodbye to each other forever, like when one of them gets married.

27. People aren’t sure if the early modern man is really a player or not.  Then he has the nerve to advise the Queen on her marriage prospects, gets himself kicked out of court, goes to fight the Spanish oversees, gives his armor to an unequipped man immediately before battle, is wounded in the thigh as a result, and—lying on the field of battle—passes his water on to another wounded man, observing that “Thy necessity is greater than mine.”  After about a month, he dies of gangrene at the age of thirty-one.  Let the legends begin.


Tuesday, September 8, 2015

Federal Judge Strikes Down Wrong Way Signs Across Regions of the U.S.



Citing the Fourteenth Amendment and the growing consensus among legal scholars and Supreme Court Justices that its penumbras include the right to be comfortable at all times, Fourteenth Circuit Judge Jessica Wadbody ruled that the signage found on most of the highways within her district is unconstitutional.

In a three-and-a-half hour presentation, complete with slides provided by the local chapter of SHUCKS (Scientists Hoping U.S. Can Keep Smiling), Judge Wadbody explained to a packed courtroom that the wrong way signs, while a traditional part of American highway scenery, caused deep-seated insecurities in many populations commonly found on the road.

“When you put people in a car, and make them drive down a narrow asphalt strip at speeds known to be threatening to life and limb—all while telling them to stay within the dotted lines, not run into the guardrail, and keep their hands off their cellphone—it’s understandable that some people would feel traumatized,” said Wadbody, pointing her gavel at a slide showing a blue bar chart with indecipherable labels.

Outside the courthouse, protestors on both sides of issue waved signs, chanted, and tried to draw thumbs-ups from passersby.

“I know it’s silly,” said pro-sign protestor Andy Doodilen.  “I mean, we all know one-way signs are good for us.  For crying out loud, taking them down would be a safety hazard!”

Protestor Murgatroyd X. (last name withheld) disagreed.  “It’s part of the whole system of microagressions that have been foisted on us by the federal trafficking agencies from the institution of the highway system,” he said.  “I mean, can’t you hear it? institution? system?  The discrimination is right there in the words.”

Asked what groups exactly suffered from these microagressions, Murgatroyd responded: “I dunno.  Teenagers.  Grandmothers.  John Lennon.  You name it—it’s everybody!  That’s why we’re here, man.  I mean, you think about the last time you drove down the road, and saw one of those signs, and you knew you couldn’t go in there.  You knew it already, but they had to tell you, shove it in your face.”

“Darn right,” chimed in Pat Sours, a lithesome and perky youth who was helping Murgatroyd hold the protest banner.  “And don’t even get me started on the wrong way signs that you can see when you’re going the RIGHT way.”

“Yeah,” laughed Murgatroyd.  “And the fact that they’re red?”

“Don’t even get me started,” repeated Sours.

In a private interview, a source close to Judge Wadbody revealed that the decision had been a difficult task.

“I don’t know when I’ve ever had to look deeper into my heart,” Judge Wadbody allegedly said.  “I never felt the urge to ignore a one way sign myself.  But all those testimonies that SHUCKS brought … they were heart-wrenching, really, deeply, heart-wrenching.  People have no idea how much pain seeing the word “wrong” can cause.  And I just knew, even if they disbarred me for it, I had to be a part of this movement.”

Judge Wadbody added in her statement to the press that she hoped the government would soon address any confusion by replacing the “wrong way” signs with more affirmative “right way” signs, in some cheery color like pink, preferably lettered in comic sans.

“It would certainly put a more welcoming face on our state,” she explained.

Tesseract Woosh , part of SHUCKS’s legal defense and lobbying team, speculated that lines on roadways would be next.

“At the very least,” she told TGWWS, “you can expect to see a case in the lower courts soon, where one of our clients challenges an officer’s decision to ticket him for going outside the lines.  We’d also like to see that police department’s charges of assault, which they brought against our client, dropped.  After all, when you’ve been oppressed with directions to ‘stay inside the line’ since kindergarten, it’s understandable that some people would snap.”