"Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what does breed insanity is reason. Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom." --G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
I never understood this statement. It seems to me that plenty of poets go insane (and I think that the argument later extends to suicide, which lots of artists of all sorts commit). But perhaps what looks like insanity in their case is simply their refusal to be confined by typical societal norms.
I never understood this statement. It seems to me that plenty of poets go insane (and I think that the argument later extends to suicide, which lots of artists of all sorts commit). But perhaps what looks like insanity in their case is simply their refusal to be confined by typical societal norms.
Marilynne Robinson does a wonderful job of telling the story of a family of odd women, several of whom commit suicide, while others go crazy (or just can't live in societal confines). They reject typical modes of nurturing and housekeeping. Their quintessential act of housekeeping is burning their house down--this sets free the words of the newspapers that they've collected and the spirit of the house itself. It indicates that women themselves (or at least these particular women) need to be set free and allowed to be transients. Their transience points to the whole state of man--the transcendent aspect of his nature can not be confined by the limits of earth (and here the Calvinism shines through--neither can God be limited by flesh). This threatens, however, to (in the overused phrase--but I'm reading Voegelin this semester and so reserve the right to use it!) immanentize the eschaton. Their focus on the next world leads to an improper orientation toward this world (hence, the prevalence of suicide; although, to be fair, the suicides may be, even for Robinson, a problematic interaction with the world). (The only other option we see is the exact opposite in the narrator's sister, who shuns their crazy ways and adopts to an extreme the "normalcy" of the town.)
Goodness gracious--the imagery of femininity is overflowing in this novel: water is ubiquitous--there is a lake that's at the center of the story, as well as a flood; housekeeping is an imposition of, not men, but society; the train and the boat are recurring motifs. What do these things tell us of Robinson's conception of the essence of woman? Water represents the fluidity of women, in a way that connects back to Chesterton's caution against over-rationality that could lead to insanity. We can see the intuition, emotion, and physicality (especially the water as womb--the amniotic fluid that holds a child) of women in the water. Housekeeping shows one view of nurturing, which Robinson rejects--that of nurturing in careful consistency with society. Rather, she shows us that nurturing can be a training in accord with nature over and against the city/town. It involves teaching an openness to that which is not seen--the invisible, but nevertheless real. There is one scene in which the narrator asserts that she sees little difference between waking and dream. The train and the boat indicate the transience that women help us see. How are women more transient than men? Perhaps this is tied to women's more tenuous/indirect connection to the community (as compared to men's often closer tie through their involvement in the public sphere). Perhaps they are more closely connected to transcendence as a result of their close connection to the bringing forth of life (a divinely creative activity). (This is not to say, of course, that men don't participate in this act of creation, but obviously, women are more intimately involved.)
Goodness gracious--the imagery of femininity is overflowing in this novel: water is ubiquitous--there is a lake that's at the center of the story, as well as a flood; housekeeping is an imposition of, not men, but society; the train and the boat are recurring motifs. What do these things tell us of Robinson's conception of the essence of woman? Water represents the fluidity of women, in a way that connects back to Chesterton's caution against over-rationality that could lead to insanity. We can see the intuition, emotion, and physicality (especially the water as womb--the amniotic fluid that holds a child) of women in the water. Housekeeping shows one view of nurturing, which Robinson rejects--that of nurturing in careful consistency with society. Rather, she shows us that nurturing can be a training in accord with nature over and against the city/town. It involves teaching an openness to that which is not seen--the invisible, but nevertheless real. There is one scene in which the narrator asserts that she sees little difference between waking and dream. The train and the boat indicate the transience that women help us see. How are women more transient than men? Perhaps this is tied to women's more tenuous/indirect connection to the community (as compared to men's often closer tie through their involvement in the public sphere). Perhaps they are more closely connected to transcendence as a result of their close connection to the bringing forth of life (a divinely creative activity). (This is not to say, of course, that men don't participate in this act of creation, but obviously, women are more intimately involved.)
No comments:
Post a Comment