Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Going To The Extremes
A major theme in O'Connor's The Violent Bear It Away is the consequences of taking things to the extreme. Even though the great uncle and the schoolteacher differ in their beliefs, they both illustrate what happens when things are taken to their extremes. Throughout his life, the great uncle proclaimed himself as a prophet of God. He took it upon himself to baptize all the members of his family. In response to their rejection, he goes so far as to kidnap the schoolteacher, baptizes him, and teaches him about what it means to follow in the ways of Jesus. After this confusing experience, the schoolteacher was damaged forever. In his rejection of God and the things that his uncle had taught him, he went to the extreme by shutting himself from anything and everything. He denied himself any feelings in order to prevent the memories of the past from resurfacing. In the end, both lived a miserable life. While the uncle was willing to suffer and be rejected in this lifetime for his reward in the afterlife; the schoolteacher believed that this life was the only life that he had, but was too afraid to live it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I have met many people today who have been hurt by the church. They respond to the extreme experience they had with open rejection of all faith. The institution of the Church is imperfect, due to the fact that the members of which it is made are imperfect. As humans we will never interpret scripture perfectly and we easily fall to extremes. However God chooses to use us, imperfect creatures, to accomplish his purpose of spreading His invitation of love and forgiveness to the world. This, imperfection is beautiful in the sense that because of it God alone is given glory for the good work done here on earth. In the book we see Rayber who is hurt by this extreme, and Tarwater who lives in it. Dangers are revealed about the lives that can be destroyed if we are not careful about how we convey our beliefs. Yet through it all nothing can change the true message of faith, no action or belief of man can change God’s good and perfect will and nature. There is an absolute truth that extends beyond our imperfection, which nothing can reverse of change.
I had the same thought today in class about Tarwater and Rayber being on the opposite and extreme sides of the spectrum and complete agree with Lynn. Rayber‘s want to “help” Francis is truly an attempt to oppose Old Tarwater’s beliefs. Rayber himself is completely turned off to anything in the religious range and to anything that does not fit his personal schema. The incident in which he attempts to kill Bishop is a prime example, he wants to cleanse himself from anything which he cannot control or that cannot be reasoned. Many people turn themselves off to religion because it something they cannot see or touch. Tarwater’s blind faith is something that many Christian’s wished they had, but they are plague by those same feelings that brings Rayber to the other side of the spectrum. Rayber feels confident in his knowledge because it is something that can be seen and reasoned, and confirmed by other scholars. Rayber questions the validity and believes from his past experience with Old Tarwater that religion is an exploitation for the crazed.
I have always found it very interesting that the majority of people can easily be divided into two personality types. While there are varying extremes to both types, in my opinion, personalities are either moderate or extreme. As Lynn points out, O’Connor endows both Rayber and Old Tarwater with extreme personalities, which either end up pushing others away (as in the case of Old Tarwater) or holding one’s own life and mind captive (like Rayber). I am intrigued by these circumstances, because I consider my own personality “extreme” and it makes me wonder if it is an inherent trait and I just began life with an all or nothing attitude, or if moderation vs. extremeness is something that develops in a person as they experience formative events in their life, whether good or bad. Although I’m not going to pick a theory, I do feel strongly that when another parties views, wishes, plans, desires, or likewise, are pounded into someone too early or at the wrong time, there can definitely be mental and emotional effects that stick with a person throughout their life. Just as Rayber’s old cousin Tarwater tried to make Rayber believe and love what he did a little too forcibly, an example that keeps surfacing in my mind is the many wonderful but also harmful effects my parents made in my life. While I know my personality is similar to my father’s and therefore probably somewhat genetically inherited, I am 100% convinced that the underlying pressures my parents have, (with their best intentions for my happiness), put upon me to succeed and follow an occasionally confining path, will have repercussions in the rest of my life. In their benefit, all the stress and pressure seems to finally be paying off in little ways, but I also relate to Rayber in that there are some memories that are just so dark that they must be locked away forever and even a momentary fear that they will again resurface is enough to drive you mad.
Lynn does well to note that both Rayber and Uncle Tarwater represent opposing extremes. So, this leaves us with the question: Is it better to act to the extreme (as Uncle Tarwater does), or to avoid action out of fear of the consequences (like Rayber)?
I think O'Connor would like us to see that both extreme action and the inability to act cause destruction. This is clear from the ending of the novel, when young Tarwater 'acts' by drowning/baptizing Bishop. Meanwhile, Rayber does not act when he hears the screams of the child. He is well aware of what is happening, but choses inaction.
Thus, either extreme causes awful destruction.
Different point in Francis’s life resembles either Old Tarwater or Rayber’s extreme life. For instance, when Francis burns the house along with Old Tarwater’s body, it indicates the extreme measure his character has taken to cut all connections from Old Tarwater just as Rayber has tried. This behavior stems from an extreme hatred when he destroys everything he knows. Furthermore, when he reunites with Rayber, Francis fears and beats Bishop to suppress Old Tarwater’s magnetism. His action resembles Rayber’s extreme behaviors to eradicate Old Tarwater’s influences when Rayber attempts to drown Bishop. Both are afraid to connect with Bishop because the memory of Old Tarwater lives in him. In a sense, both are afraid of human emotions; therefore, even though they are in society they live outside of it in order to avoid unreasonable love of relationships. At the end of the book, Flannery O’Connor depicts Old Tarwater’s extreme behavior through Francis as she illustrates how Francis baptizes Bishop. He embodies Old Tarwater’s irrational love (faith); therefore, he has unwontedly baptized and killed Bishop just as Old Tarwater has stolen Rayber and Francis’s normal life due to this love. Finally, Francis returns to isolation depicting another Old Tarwater’s extreme behavior.
I definitely agree—Old Tarwater and Rayber are opposite extremes, one on the side of heartfelt religion, and the other on the side of cool reason. However, both extremes are necessary in a person (and a Christian), because you can’t have a life based solely on emotion or a life completely free from emotion. I think that the ideal Christian should have the passion and faith of Old Tarwater, but also with the thoughtfulness and intellectual searching of Rayber. Old Tarwater was passionate and emotional about what he believed, but these beliefs had not been tested in the Christian community; he was isolated at Powderhead, so his extreme views remained unchecked. Rayber, consumed with temperance, researched and cautiously chose what to believe. This is an important trait for Christians as well, as it helps them to protect their beliefs from the tempting influence of emotional highs, but Rayber shielded himself too much, and had kept all emotion in check. Each man would have been more effective (and happier) with a little moderation, so the old adage of “Everything in moderation,” holds true when considering Old Tarwater and Rayber.
I actually never thought about Rayber taking his lack of feelings to an extreme, but it's true! While Old Tarwater throws himself into his faith, Rayber completely denies that God exists. He even shuts off his feelings for his only son, Bishop, and at one point attempts to drown him. I find this very depressing. This novel is a good illustration of why balance is important in life. Life is all about balance. You can't shut yourself off from the world to worship God, you must worship God in the context of every day life. On the other hand, you can't deny that there is nothing beyonnd this world and refuse to feel love. I belive that Rayber suffered because deep down inside all humans have a desire to commune with God, but he never appeased that desire. I have a new love for this novel because now I see it as a lesson in balance.
One of the things I found interesting about our previous class discussion was the distinction made between Rayber and Old Tarwater as representing reason and faith. As you pointed out, both of these characters take their respective trait to an extreme. It reminded me of a quote from a famous teacher, “here it is that natural instinct and here is control, you are to combine the two in harmony, not if you have one to the extreme you would be very un-scientific, you have another to the extreme you become all of a sudden a mechanical man, no longer a human being.” These two extremes become the pulling forces on Francis as he must navigate between two men who claim their worldviews are mutually exclusive. But perhaps there is some middle ground which can be achieved, some harmony. Maybe Francis’ greatest struggle is to gain control and reasonability in his faith while retaining the ability to feel the depth of the emotions which make people human.
I agree with Lynn and see Old Tarwater and Rayber at different ends of the same spectrum. Francis is pulled between the two men's extremes throughout the course of the novel. Each man wants to use Francis for his own ends. Each wants to leave his legacy through Francis to continue, whether it is as a prophet or a highly educated man of reason. Extremes are dangerous in any situation. Old Tarwater’s full reliance on emotional faith left no room for interpretation and personalization of his faith. Whereas, Rayber reasoned all corruption in the church to mean the whole institution is Christianity manipulative. Just as Laura said, the church is made up of imperfect people, and we must remember that a man's actions cannot change "God's good and perfect nature and will." I think that each believer needs to find a balance between these two ends to truly find the community and support God intended for his believers to find.
Even in today’s society there are Raybers and Old Tarwaters as well. You have people were have had a bad experience and are now so turned off by religious conviction, because of a misguided person representing a religion, not the true faith. This happens, especially in O’Connor’s novel, because there is a distinct separation of reason with religion. As Kara said in class, ‘children have a pure faith in God’, but it is a blind faith. It is only as we grow older and learn more in-depth about religion that our faith is strengthened. It is easy to have blind faith when that is all that you know, but when you learn about the rest of the world and yet, still believe that reveals a deeper faith. This is the problem that both Old Tarwater and Rayber have. Old Tarwater has limited or no schooling and this impairs his judgment of Christ, whereas Rayber is so put off by religion because of how it was portrayed by his Uncle. Ironically each of these characters is each other’s ying and yang: together they would make a more complete person.
While it's definitely true that Old Tarwater is an example of a religious extremist, I'm not sure Rayber can be labeled the same. He still lives within the confines of society and leads a normal life, whereas some would preach their anti-religious message and flee from anything at all that hints of faith. I see Rayber as highly insecure and constantly wrestling with his emotions and thoughts about the past, but he isn't that far out there, though he is miserable for sure. Even with Old Tarwater, yes he is an extremist, but I wonder whether we shouldn't take into account his ignorance of true religion and his mental illness before we label him, as well. Perhaps he doesn't have the mental capacity to understand balance, and maybe he has never been taught that a religious person can live any other way than the way he has chosen. Maybe I"m being too compassionate towards him, but it's just a thought.
On one hand I can say that I am if full support of taking personal beliefs and convictions to the extreme. I think having beliefs that you are willing to give full support to despite the consequences is admirable. Yet I know that this can be very dangerous. I can support people who are willing to die for their faith, but I cannot say that I support those who are willing to kill for it. If a person wants to take his or her personal beliefs to the extreme I can support that, but when these extremes begin to affect others is when problems begin. I think this is where I find the fault in Rayber and Old Tarwater. I am okay with Old Tarwater being a religious fanatic and a self-appointed prophet; that is his choice. However, when he begins to affect the lives of people outside of himself he goes too far. The same goes for Rayber. If he chooses to live in complete opposition to faith and shut himself off to feelings and emotions that is fine, but forcing this upon others is not acceptable. What makes these characters so unlikable is the way they take their own extreme beliefs and force them upon young Tarwater, permanently distorting his life.
I definitely agree with Lynn's view of these extreme opposites. These opposites, as we discussed in class lead to distruction. Because these characters are so full of their own desires and wishes to fulfill a mission or repress emotion, they forget the overall picture of what life is about, living. As all great philosophers have noted in the past, the path to happiness is through the knowledge of the mean. Any extremes are to be considered vices, Tarwater and Rayber are true representatives of destructive vices.I think the only character who tried to achieve his own happiness was Frankie, he set own to find his own path. Maybe in the end he did, although it was in a sort of distorted way. He tried to find the mean between the extreme zelous state of Old Tarwater and the extreme emotionless convictions of his uncle. He realized and had enough reason to see that both of their arguments for what they both thought right was not enough to lead a fulfulling life.
The concept of extremes leaves a big question to me. That is, why do they believe that extremes are really necessary? Extremes seem to always take things to far and this proves it with the kidnapping and forced religious practices that the uncle does to the school teacher. Extremes are just that, an extreme. They should only be used when all other options have been eliminated, and only then. Extremes seem to leave no other alternative and force things onto others. The idea of extremes can also be seen in other works that we have read this semester. Voldemort went to extremes when he was in power, Joe went to some what of extremes to keep Janie living like the women he wanted her to be, and much more. The idea of extremes is usually used by those who cannot see the bigger picture, or at least think that they do but really do not. As a result the use of extremes usually results in negative outcomes.
Lynn, that is a point well-made. Both Frank and Rayber struggle so completely because in the schoolteacher's obsessive rejection of anything faith-filled or illogical, he cuts himself off from experienceing love, while Frank and old Tarwater's rejection of anything logical leads to death and destruction. Meanwhile, how about the extremity of judgement with no love? Of all the characters I can think of, only Bishop loves without judgment; the great-uncle, the schoolteacher, Frank, the insurance salesman, the woman who saw Rayber walking in the dark, the kids at the theatre, the little preaching girl, the lady at the fishing lodge/restaurant, the dancing teenagers, the grouchy driver, the lady at the gas station, and Buford all pass judgement on each other, leading to further problems. If they'd learn how to love each other or give the benefit of the doubt, their lives wouldn't be so incredibly messed up. It's a grotesque thing.
Post a Comment