Recursion

I did the math a couple of weeks ago and realized that if I read a book a week from the unread books pile on my shelves, I would have more than enough books to keep me busy for well over a year. Now that I am finished school, I have decided to begin to make inroads on this pile of books, since I can now indulge in the life of a free woman: I can read what |I want to, when I want to and how I want to.  As a result of this freedom, I have gone through a number of books over the past couple of months that I have been meaning to mention on here, but have neglected to write about thus far.

It is time to rectify this situation.

The first book I picked off my shelf was Recursion by Tony Ballantine.  I had picked up this book a couple of years ago at the sale section of the library for .50 cents.  I had never heard of the author before |(this apparently was his first book), and I have not read much science fiction in my reading history thus far, but I came to the conclusion that there must always be a first time for everything

At first the book was confusing.  The first chapter was about a young rich man who destroyed a planet through rogue robots and had gotten caught by a mysterious, powerful stranger.  The second chapter was about a young woman who was trying to get away with her own suicide in a society that has its every moved watched.  The third chapter was about a young man who could function in this omniaware society without being seen, like a ghost, as he followed a strange woman to the heart of a technological city to hear about its secrets.  Needless to say, the novel made no sense to me at first.

As I persevered however, the stories began to converge as the overlining plot began to be revealed, and the truth of the plot was something quite profound indeed.  The book was asking the basic existential questions that if there was a being such as God, who had the power to make everything in our lives perfect, whether it would be worth the surrendering of our privacy, free choice and free will to have our lives planned for us?  We would all be happy, but would that be worth the cost of our freedom?  Not only that, but if one person's happiness was worth the destruction of another person's happiness, which person would you choose to make happy?  The book, in its subtle way, makes the reader slowly aware that the basic human skepticisms about theodicy are simplistic in their assumption that a good God must always act in a way that brings about our happiness.

The Consolations of Philosophy

Taking a short break from my required correspondence course reading, I have just finished The Consolations of Philosophy by Alain de Botton. The title is borrowed from a medieval work by Boethius, and in this book de Botton introduces the reader to the lives and ideas of several important philosophers. He highlights how such philosophy can speak to our deepest needs and uncertainties today.

Consolation for Unpopularity: Socrates

Socrates knew that prevalent cultural norms and opinions were not always based in reality and common sense. Truth is not decided by majority opinion, but ought to be the result of logic. Just because your idea is uncommon does not mean that it is wrong. Even when Socrates was condemned to death by the court of Athens (on charges of failing to worship the gods and corrupting the city's youth), he refused to renounce his philosophy though doing so probably could have saved his life. He held his beliefs, even when they made him unpopular. In contrast, de Botton puts words to the way we often feel: "In conversations, my priority was to be liked, rather than to speak the truth" (7).

Consolation for Not Having Enough Money: Epicurus

Epicurus defined the goal of life to be pleasure. However, the things that bring us the most pleasure do not require a great deal of money: friendship, freedom, and reflection. With these elements a person can be happy with our without wealth; without them a person will be unhappy despite any amount of money. The requisites of pleasure are simple and inexpensive.

Consolation for Frustration: Seneca

We are frustrated when reality does not conform to our desires. Seneca recommends with pessimism that we expect the worst so that it cannot surprise us, and lower our idea of what we are entitled to. If we seriously consider our fears, we may discover that their realization wouldn't be as bad as we imagine. In addition, we ought to recognize that disasters are indiscriminate and not take them personally.

Seneca provides an interesting explanation of the interaction between freedom and fate: a dog tied to a cart travelling in one direction has the choice to gladly trot in the same direction, or to attempt to rebel and be forced along. We will follow the road of fate regardless, but the experience will be easier and more pleasurable if we submit tranquilly to circumstances that we cannot change. "It is in our spontaneous acceptance of necessity that we find our distinctive freedom" (109).

Consolation for Inadequacy: Michel de Montaigne

Montaigne noticed that a great deal of philosophy and appropriate social conversation deny a great deal of the natural human condition. In his writings, he sought to be honest about himself as an entire person - mind and body. It is okay to accept our frailties, because we all share in the human condition (125)."What we see evidence for in others, we will attend to within, what others are silent about, we may stay blind to or experience only in shame" (129); thus Montaigne even wrote about experiences that could seem embarrassing or uncouth. By understanding the experiences of others we can be more gracious with ourselves.

Montaigne also defines the difference between learning (book knowledge and trivia) and wisdom (keys to living well), emphasizing the preeminent value of wisdom.

I don't think I had heard of this philosopher before, but reading about him made me interested in looking into his writing further.

Consolation for a Broken Heart: Schopenhauer

Schopenhauer believes that love is an expression of the "will-to-life," a subconscious drive to continue the human species by creating viable offspring. When we fall in love with someone, we are simply (unconsciously) recognizing that their genes will fit well with ours. When we fall out of love with someone, we are simply realizing that our first impression of genetic suitability was wrong - it's nothing personal. This can even be a relief, because the person we choose as a likely mate for healthy, attractive children is not necessarily an appropriate companion who will make us happy (but our will-to-life does not allow us to recognize this, and subjugates our happiness to the furtherance of the human race). It also helps to know that everyone else has at one time or another experienced the same thing.

Consolation for Difficulties: Nietzsche

The core of Nietzsche's philosophy (at least what is presented here) is the idea that pain and pleasure are intimately connected. Reducing one's pain in turn reduces one's capacity for pleasure because they go hand in hand. "Fulfilment was to be reached not by avoiding pain, but by recognizing its role as a natural, inevitable step on the way to reaching anything good" (210). Suffering spurs us on to greater achievement. Nietzsche warns us against low expectations and against anything that numbs or accustoms us to our pain and encourages us to settle.

The Clan of the Cave Bear by Jean M. Auel

I finished reading this book a while ago but haven't gotten a chance to write about it until now. It was a fascinating look at anthropology set in the exotic world of fiction. Interestingly the author is quite the anthropologist herself and has won many awards for her research and fiction. I suppose fiction is a safe place to put  her findings since they remain largely unable to prove or disprove them.
The story catches you immediately. A little girl naked and frightened goes off in search of help after her whole world is devoured by a nasty earthquake. She's too young to make it on her own and ends up in the path of a wandering tribe who has been forced out of their cave by the same disaster. The girl being one of what the tribe would call "the others" might have been left to die except for the kindness of an old medicine woman who's maternal instinct would not allow the child be left behind. She carries the frightened child to what becomes her new world inside the clan. Instantly this child becomes a problem for the leader because she is different and he is frightened that she will change the delicate fabric that is their society. The girl represents humanity as it is now and the clan represents the cave man who's kind was eventually wiped out to make way for natures second shot at creating humanity that could last. Only near the end does the medicine woman's kindly brother Mog-Ur the clans magic man figure this out. There is a lot of drama around this girl as she tries desperately to become one of the clan and fights to survive. She quickly gains a terrible enemy in the leaders son Broud who has no compassion for the outsider and is jealous of the attention she gets.
It was interesting reading about the differences between the two types of humans and the girls coming of age story was fascinating but the author tended to spend inordinate amounts of time on discriptions which could discourage some readers. Altogether I don't see this series having the same potential as "The Outlander" but it is interesting and I will continue to read it.
The idea of a further evolved race emerging and causing a dilemma for the survival of the other race came up this week in the new X-Men movie. The mutants are not freaks as many humans would assume but really a more advanced version of them. The X-Men have chosen to work with humans to create peace between the two whereas the other mutants have chosen genocide. They see the earth only being able to populate one of the two evolved races and they intend to make sure they are the winners.   

"I Want to Marry You, Because..."

Cast of Characters:

Jane Eyre - the heroine, an orphan, a governess

Mr. Rochester - Jane's employer and love interest - a harsh, unattractive man

Miss Ingram - a beautiful but shallow woman who Rochester pursues

Bertha Mason - Rochester's secret, insane wife

St. John Rivers - Jane's cousin - a strict, disciplined man

Rosamond Oliver - a rich woman in love with St. John

WARNING: This probably includes spoilers if you have not read the story and want the plot to remain a surprise.

How do people choose a marriage partner? The most prominent answers to this question change throughout time. In long ago eras of human history, people sought mates who displayed characteristics suggesting long life and viable offspring. In our current culture, people marry primarily for love, choosing a spouse for their preferred companionship. In the nineteenth century, marriages were influenced by many factors. The story of Jane Eyre illustrates relationships and potential relationships built on status and money, on duty, and on love.

Today's society values work, and people who earn a living through a paying occupation are the norm. In contrast, in the stratified society of the Victorian era the necessity to provide for oneself through labour, instead having an income coming from the interest on an inheritance or from tenants renting land, lowered a family on the social scale. Marriage was regarded as a means of attaining wealth and respectability, and was particularly important for people of rank who were raised in wealthy households but who found themselves with little inheritance as they reached adulthood. This would often be the case for younger sons: to avoid splitting the family's wealth, it would be given intact to only the oldest son. If his younger brothers did not marry rich women, they would be destitute. This is Rochester's situation, and the impetus for his first marriage to Bertha Mason. His older brother was to receive the entire Rochester fortune. His father and brother arranged a marriage between Rochester and a rich woman in Jamaica, and it did not matter to them that this woman had a family history of insanity and was prone to it herself. Rochester did not know about his bride's character or propensities when he married her - in fact, he barely knew her at all. He reports that he never loved her, and his mercenary marriage essentially ruined his life. Further, when his older brother died, Rochester inherited his family's wealth, making Bertha's money and their marriage unnecessary. By that time, however, it was too late.

We see Jane's opinions of marriages for the sake of money or status as she reflects on the relationship between Rochester and Miss Ingram. It is clear that they are pursuing each other, but Jane is convinced that Rochester does not love Miss Ingram. "I saw that he was gong to marry her, for family, perhaps political reasons, because her rank and connexions suited him; I felt that he had not given her his love, and that her qualifications were ill adapted to win from him that treasure" (158-159). Jane considers marrying for anything other than love to be "commonplace" (160), and she feels so strongly about it that she later tells Rochester that "I would scorn such a union: therefore, I am better than you" (216). Jane doesn't understand why any person who has a choice would marry for any reason other than love. However, she realizes that those of a higher class are motivated by different pressures. "The longer I considered the position, education, &c., of the parties, the less I felt justified in judging and blaming either him or Miss Ingram, for acting in conformity to ideas and principles instilled into them, doubtless, from their childhood. All their class held these principles; I supposed, then, they had reasons for holding them such as I could not fathom" (160).

The actual situation between Rochester and Miss Ingram is different than what is represented. It truly is a relationship that lacks love, but Rochester does not intend for it to lead to marriage. He is acting interested in Miss Ingram merely to make Jane jealous. Rochester is essentially sarcastic when, disguised as the fortune teller, he tells Jane "No doubt... they will be a superlatively happy pair. He must love such a handsome, noble, witty, accomplished lady; and probably she loves him: or if not his person, at least his purse" (170-171). Rochester has learned the dangers of a marriage based on status instead of love. It becomes clear that Miss Ingram is only interested in Rochester's money when he spreads rumour that his fortune is smaller than what she expected, and she cools her interest in the relationship (217).

The relationship between Jane and Rochester is based on love and respect. Although they do not belong to the same social class or income bracket, they are able to carry on intelligent conversations and they admire each other's personalities. Rochester calls Jane his equal and his likeness as he proposes to her (217), and she continually lets the reader in on the secret of her love for Rochester. The story eventually concludes with Jane and Rochester's marriage and happy life together.

In the meantime, however, the story demonstrates that love is not always enough to build a successful relationship. Love must be tempered by reason. When we discover that Rochester is already married, it becomes apparent that a marriage between him and Jane would not be legally valid, and that if they were to stay together, Jane would essentially be Rochester's mistress. She believes that this would be wrong, but because she loves Rochester so deeply she faces a very difficult decision. Finally, she realizes that for the sake of her self respect she cannot stay with Rochester (270). Love was not enough when circumstances conspired against the couple.

Rosamond Oliver and St. John Rivers provide another example of two people who love each other but do not end up together. Miss Oliver's love for St. John is clear and uninhibited; St. John's feelings, on the other hand, are reluctant and tortured. He does admit that he loves Miss Oliver, but he refuses to pursue relationship because he considers it impractical. She does not fit with his future plans to be a missionary (318). It is clear that St. John is a character who places a sense of duty above all else.

St. John's sense of duty is even more apparent when he pursues Jane. Not only does he make his own relational decisions based on his calling, but when he recognizes someone who would be suited to the same lifestyle, he expects her to eagerly join him. St. John says to Jane, "God and nature intended you for a missionary's wife... A missionary's wife you must - shall be. You shall be mine: I claim you - not for my pleasure, but for my Sovereign's service" (343). When Jane exhorts St. John to find a wife he loves ("Seek one elsewhere than in me, St. John: seek one fitted to you"), he responds by referring to duty ("One fitted to my purpose, you mean - fitted to my vocation" [346]). Jane attempts turns down St. John's proposal. She is willing to accompany him to India as a missionary, but she will not go as his wife because it is clear to her that St. John does not love her, nor does she love him. St. John will not accept her refusal, however. As he understands it, his desires are the will of God. If someone does not cooperate with his plan, they are disobeying God. St John expresses these fears to Jane: "If you reject it, it is not me you deny, but God. Through my means, He opens to you a noble career; as my wife only can you enter upon it. Refuse to be my wife, and you limit yourself for ever to a track of selfish ease and barren obscurity. Tremble lest in that case you should be numbered with those who have denied the faith, and are worse than infidels!" (348). Jane is not persuaded, however. She will not marry out of sense of duty, even when she is threatened with divine disappointment.

Jane sees an alternative when marriage for love is not available: rather than settling for a love-less marriage, she prefers to remain single. She acknowledges "the fact that [she and St. John] did not love each other as man and wife should; and therefore it inferred we ought not to marry" (345). She says again later, "[St. John] has told me I am formed for labour - not for love: which is true no doubt. But, in my opinion, if I am not formed for love, it follows that I am not formed for marriage" (354). If she does not marry for love, she will not marry at all. St. John's prediction about Jane is wrong, however. Jane and Rochester are "formed" to love each other and to spend a happy life together.

Although most couples today marry for love, there are still contemporary examples of the other reasons behind choosing a spouse. A single mother, for instance, might marry an interested man who has a good job, not because she is madly in love with him but because he can provide for her and be a necessary role model for her children. Jane Eyre provides a timely discussion of the factors involved in choosing a person to marry by discussing love, money, and duty.

Next Up

I'm heading into the fifth book for my correspondence course: Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte. Is anyone interested in reading along with me?

Frankenstein

For my correspondence course, I had to read Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. An interesting choice, I thought - but it is literature, written in England in the 1800s, so I guess it is within the scope I am studying. And you know what? It was so interesting! I would highly recommend reading this book. It turns out that most of the legend of Frankenstein has been developed separately from the original story.

First of all, Frankenstein is the name of the man (Victor Frankenstein) who created a living being. The creature itself is never named. This happens relatively early in the story, and the rest of the book considers the results. Victor is so horrified by his success that he has a mental breakdown (the first of several). His creature must fend for himself, and he learns to speak and read. He is so ugly, though, that everyone runs from him in terror. He has no companions; he is lonely. Though he begins as a benevolent, kind hearted being, his misery turns him into a monster. He eventually seeks out Victor and begs him to create a mate to keep him company and accept him. When Victor refuses and the creature kills Victor's new wife in response, they begin a cycle of mutual revenge.

Frankenstein considers what is owed to creation by its creator. It also looks at what can happen when people are deprived of love and socialization. "Is it scary?" a friend asked me. The characters in the book are scared, but no, reading it is not scary. It's fascinating. (Also, it's easy to read, and though sometimes implausible, the story keeps pulling you forward.)

Wikipedia on Persuasion

"The novel has been described as a great "Cinderella" story (introduction to the Penguin Classics edition). All the similarities between the fairy story and Austen's novel are there; a heroine who is generally unappreciated by those around her; a handsome prince who arrives but seems more interested in the "more obvious" charms of the Musgrove girls than the more steady charms offered by Anne; a moment of realisation and the final happy ending when those who did not appreciate have time to realise what they have lost. It has been said that it is not that Anne is unloved, more that those around her no longer see her, she is such a fixed part of life that her likes and dislikes, wishes and dreams are no longer considered, even by those who claim to appreciate her, like Lady Russell."

(Interesting! I didn't notice this.)