Charity of the Artist

It feels like every piece of literature we have read has not had much to do with my big blog question... or charity for that matter. I have been able to identify minor details in the works to fit with my question, but those details tend not to be huge themes that project the authors' purpose, but I still manage to connect it somehow. However, I'm having a difficult time with the last novel we just read, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce, which displays the early life of a boy, whose name is Stephen Dedalus, on his journey to becoming an artist. His path is defined by a series of epiphanies, each guiding him to eventually isolating himself from the rest of the world: his family, his friends, his school, the Catholic Church (and religion in general), women, and just about everything else that doesn't involve his work as an artist. He doesn't take it upon himself to put others before him, in fact he does quite the opposite. Not that I am condemning him in any way, because his passion for being an artist is inspiring and lights a fire within me. But in relation to my blog... Stephen has little to offer. There is one thing I could say. That is the idea of each person on this Earth having an individual purpose, and there is an art in using our talents and God-given abilities to enhance that purpose, therefore serving others through fulfilling that purpose. Stephen writes, first and foremost (just as any true artist), to express himself and his emotions/passion, and then has the capability and wish of sharing it with the world. He uses the fire that words light in his soul to feed the flame of passion for others. This, to some extent (yes, it is a stretch), could be a form of charity: the active efforts of one to fulfill one's purpose, and blessing the lives of others through allowing them to be "glimmering and trembling, trembling and unfolding, a breaking light, an opening flower..."(Joyce, 166).

Love Thyself as Thy Neighbor

"'Your love is too thick,' he said...
"'Too thick?' she said... 'Love is or it ain't. Thin love ain't love at all."(Morrison 164)

When does charity become destructive? In the novel Beloved by Toni Morrison, Sethe bends over backwards to regain the love of the ghost of her child, Beloved, whom Sethe had murdered 18 years before to save her from the horrors of slavery. Sethe's love becomes obsessive, and that, combined with Beloved's parasite-like presence begins to drain the life from Sethe, while Beloved grows stronger everyday. Sethe directly correlates her own worth to her daughter's happiness, not realizing that Beloved might not be merely the ghost of her daughter, but something far more disturbing, some sort of mixture of Beloved and an evil spirit, her past coming back to haunt her. Denver, Sethe's other daughter tells Sethe's lover, Paul D, after he asks if Beloved was actually her sister "'At times. At times I think she was--more.'"(266). This indicates that the recipient of Sethe's love and charity may not exactly be who it was meant for. And Sethe's inability to recognize this keeps her locked up as a prisoner of the past. Though her intentions are well intended, and she seeks redemption through this charity to Beloved, her efforts are fruitless because Beloved is not capable of purely receiving this love. Which is not necessarily Sethe's fault, but it brings my stream of consciousness to this: love is at its best when the giver of that love loves themselves as well. There must be an understanding of self-worth and self-meaning to give charity. Without that understanding, one is like Sethe, blindly giving to one who feeds off of her ignorance, because she believes Beloved is her "best thing"(272). Her motherly love is truly inspiring, but misled. A mother should always love their children, but they must first love themselves to love their children completely. I'm not saying, by any means, that one should think of themselves before others. That is the exact opposite of charity. What I am trying to explain, and better comprehend myself, is that in order to teach love, and practice love, to love oneself cannot and having an established sense of being and purpose is essential. It takes Paul D to make Sethe realize this. "'You are your best thing, Sethe. You are.'"(273).

A Stranger's Charity

There isn’t a whole lot to write about regarding charity in The Stranger by Albert Camus. In fact, existentialists themselves do not have much to say about charity. But I do find one character, more specifically one event, in this novel very relevant to the subject of charity. “‘Yes, my son,’ he said, putting his hand on my shoulder, ‘I am on your side. But you have no way of knowing it because your heart is blind. I shall pray for you.’”(120). The it is hard to know the intentions behind the priest’s charity, his desire to help Meaursault find God, because The Stranger is told from Mearusault’s point of view. But the idea of intentions behind charity is key to my original question, because charity done with pure intentions is the only charity worth doing. Are the chaplain’s intentions pure? From Meaursault, we get the feeling that the chaplain is merely trying to force his beliefs upon him rather than genuinely help him. However, I feel the chaplain, knowing that God lives and believing God has the power to save all men, seems overbearing because he wants so badly for Mearsault to understand. But this book isn’t about God. It isn’t about faith. It isn’t about hope. Camus makes that quite obvious. Why does the world need a God if life is meaningless? You are born, you live, then you die. Nothing else. So why would charity be relevant or even needed in a world where nothing matters?

The Selfless Prostitute

Charity cannot be accomplished without selflessness. If one is completely selfless, the human tendency to think of oneself is conquered and the ability to go forward in charity is established.
So, the question is: Who is the most selfless character in the novel Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky? While analyzing the characters and having many class discussions over the subject, I came to a personal conclusion, especially after reading the epilogue. Sonia, the prostitute (and ironically the most spiritual character as well), lends her entire self to the preservation of her family. She, quite literally, sells her body to keep her family financially afloat in the harsh environment of St. Petersburg, Russia. She constantly strives to help Raskolnikov (who, until the end, treats her rudely in return), even after he tells her of the murders. She encourages him to confess, and when he does end up confessing, her presence is what gives him the strength and courage to do so. Sonia does not get immediate reward for her help. Both her parents die, despite her efforts in providing for them, Raskolnikov is cold and rude to her (what's new?), and she is also looked down upon by the community because of her prostitute status. Only one who truly has pure selflessness and intention can continue in their charity despite the odds pressing their full weight upon his/her situation. Because of her persistence and faith, her reward does come, but only after much suffering on her part. She goes to Siberia with Raskolnikov, where he finally realizes his love for her, and his mental and spiritual stability is restored. His only hope is Sonia. Without Sonia, poor Rodya would probably be in some dark, creepy alley of St. Petersburg, muttering madness about the murders he never had the courage (or humility) to confess. Sonia, being the most selfless character, exemplifies the purest form of charity there is, a charity not hindered by any human selfish intention. She was not in it for herself, but rather for the ones she loves.

Pride to Humility-King Lear

Kings do not bow down to others, but are bowed down to. They do not wait upon their servants, their servants wait upon them. They do not stand by while decisions are made, they make the decisions. So why, in Shakespeare's King Lear, is this standard of kings and their entitlements and duties done away with? And how does this have anything to do with charity?
Okay, so the charity part might sound like a stretch right now, but let me get to it in a little bit, after I've explained some things. First of all, Lear's tragic flaw is pride, a characteristic we often associate with kings in general. Pride, also, is the opposite of humility, and both cannot exist at the same time. At the beginning of the play, Lear is as far away from humility as a man can be. He may think his actions of slicing up his kingdom and dishing it off to his daughters is very charitable and humble indeed, but his intentions are all wrong. In return for his daughters answering the question "How much do you love me?" he gives them a piece of land, the size according to the love his daughters express to him. By attempting to quantifying love, Lear is showcasing his hubris perfectly. Little does he know, two of the daughters that say they love him "more than than word can wield the/matter,/Dearer than eyesight, space and liberty,/No less than life, with grace, health, beauty, honor...", will be the ones who banish him from the kingdom and seek to kill him. With this realization, after both daughters (Goneril and Regan) kick him out of their own homes, Lear goes mad. As in insane. He is so abhorred by his daughter's treatment of a king, he becomes raving mad. At this point (read carefully now, because this is the part that actually connects to charity) Lear begins to let go of his pride, and humility settles in. He literally sheds his kingly, fancy clothes, and strips down to the clothes of a beggar, humbling himself to the extent not only mentally, but physically as well. Ironically enough, this is when charity also becomes present in Lear's actions to his servants, the Fool and a disguised Kent, "Come on, my boy. How dost, my boy? Art cold?". As soon as his pride is gone, though he is mad, humility allows Lear to be charitable towards those around him, despite any sort of social standing.
May I be so bold as to connect this to charity today. The charity we do should hold no bounds as to who. We should not think ourselves better than anyone else according to "social standing". With charity, social status should not even exist. Once we are able to humble 0urselves, and not let the flaw of pride get in the way of our serving others, charity will become significantly more present in our lives.

Life, at Death, a Memory Without Pain

“Let every man in mankind’s frailty

Consider his last day; and let none

Presume on his good fortune until he find

Life, at his death, a memory without pain.” (1474-1477)

How do we find life at death? Or life a memory without pain? Can either be an element of redemption? Or are both, when put together, the core of redemption?

Oedipus Rex, the Greek tragedy (like most Greek tragedies) has the effect of catharsis or a sense of purification felt at the ending. Oedipus is damned from the start, with a fate thrust upon him that will eventually lead him to discovering he is his father’s murderer, blinding himself with his dead wife/mother’s brooches, then banishing himself from Thebes. Through this journey, the reader (if not heartless) should feel some sort of catharsis, or perhaps redemption because of the knowledge gained and the emotions felt throughout the course of the tragedy.

The lines quoted above are the last lines of the tragedy, spoken directly to the audience. I interpret it as a warning to not rely on good fortune, for it is fleeting. Because of good fortune’s instability, we must rather look towards finding life at death, a memory without pain.

So, the question is: How? Both finding life at death and remembering life as a memory without pain are extensively paradoxical, and therefore difficult to define the means of achieving either. Going back to my big question, I believe a core part lie in charity. If we do not lean on our “good fortune” and rather look outside ourselves, we can achieve life at death and remember life without pain, because death won’t be the end of us and the pain will be overrun with our pure love for others and life in general. Which leads me to another question: Does Oedipus find either? And if he does, is it through charity?

The BIG Question...

"It is one of the most beautiful compensations of life that no person can
sincerely try to help another without helping themselves." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Hell is yourself and the only redemption is when a person puts himself aside to feel deeply for another person." -Tennessee Williams

Milky eyes searching but not seeing, squinted in chronic pain. A lopsided mouth speaking muffled words, barely audible. A smile lights up her face and a whispering, yet undeniably joyful laugh floats across the room. Though physically mangled, her intellect and wisdom is far beyond mine. I am awed by the pure wit and understanding that is hidden behind this age-ridden face. My heart is full of genuine love for this woman, and a passion for charity has overtaken my mind and soul... a redemption of some sort, has washed me clean of any selfish thought.

Before meeting Mary Jane, I originally went to Sunrise Assisted Living Center to call out bingo for the ladies still mentally "there". These residents are a hoot, and therefore enjoyable to be with, so I was a little disappointed to find someone else already calling bingo when I arrived that Saturday morning.
"I can just come back another time," I told Glenda, a woman who worked there. Despite my attempt in rescheduling, Glenda was insistent in finding something for me to do.
"Would you feel comfortable reading to a resident?" She asked hopefully, probably recognizing my intentions of skipping out on volunteer work for that day. My heart sank. I didn't feel my skills in reading out loud were quite up to par. In fact, I didn't feel comfortable at all.
"Sure... I'll do whatever you need me to do," My voice betrayed the offer, but Glenda didn't seem to notice. I followed her into a dimly lit room, with an old woman hunched into an arm chair. I was slightly taken aback. Quite frankly, this woman looked scary. Her age was apparent in both sight and smell. There was a sign on the wall that stated "Please keep the blinds closed, the light hurts Mary Jane's eyes".
When the initial shock had passed, a wave of compassion and pity flooded into my heart. I was determined to make this lady happy, even if reading to her was more like reading to a wall than to a woman. First impressions are often way off the mark... and as I mentioned earlier, this woman left me in absolute admiration and I felt love, not pity, for her. I was temporarily renewed, redeemed, from my own mortal selfishness.

In the novel Cold Mountain by Charles Frazier, former Confederate soldier and current outlier, Inman embarks upon a journey that will test him in every way imaginable. He considers himself "empty" and stripped of any emotional capacity, I think he is wrong. Along his path, charity is both given and received. Inman is given places to stay, food to eat, which ultimately save him from perishing of fatigue and starvation. He offers in return protection and even the preservation of life for many with his extraordinary, innate fighting ability. All of these actions done out of charity. In Inman's return back to Ada, their love is renewed and intensified. Both helped themselves by helping each other. Charity and love are central to Inman's survival, and in the end, his redemption.

Charity is defined by Mormons (and Christians in general) as "the pure love of Christ". This intertwines "love" and "charity" in quite an inseparable manner. Continuing on the religious spectrum, Christ is the only person able to redeem us from our own demise as humans.
Therefore, to what extent does charity bring forth redemption?