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?