I think Flannery O'Connor did a fantastic job of crafting extremely rigid characters who get thrown into situations where they must either break or grow. Highly agree that the conscience, misshapen or whole, is largely missing from character development nowadays.
A good example, less literary of course, is what Sam Spade tells Bridget O'Shaunessy at the end of The Maltese Falcon. Throughout the film we are told much about Sam's partner, how he is married to a wife who doesn't love him, and how he womanized (You saw her first, Sam, but I spoke first, is a line Archer delivers and gets him killed.) Sam doesn't look at the body of his dead partner, and even sleeps with Iva. Archer's wife. Yet, in the end, he tells the woman he allegedly falls in love with, he's 'sending her over' when she confesses that she killed Archer. She begs and cries, and tells him he's joking, but he isn't. Bye-bye Bridget.
And that's when he states his morality: When a guy's partner is killed he's got to do something. He sacrifices his love/lust for Bridget because everything in him doesn't want to ... he knows their relationship is doomed because she 'will have something" on him. In other words, he can never trust her. Their love is the "stuff that dreams are made of." But foremost, he has to give Archer justice, really, even though he was a rotter: Archer was his partner. He owes him a duty that transcends his wanting Bridget.
A feminist might say, it's the "man code," that motivates Sam. A psych might say there a gay aspect to Sam's loyalty. An absolutist might say, Sam's a hypocrite because his duty does not extend to refusing to use Archer's wife. Until we find out she's cheated on Sam, too. But, there's a raw truth in the story. Everyone has a line that cannot be crossed, even if the line is a personal moral code one is unaware of until it's tested.
It's scenes like the one in Maltese Falcon that are most glaring missing from (at least) literary fiction: easy decisions are not virtuous. Virtue isn't virtue unless there's a struggle to reject the easy.
wow. i really must read something of his other than The Road. you always guve me a lot to ponder!
coincidentally...
i just restacked one of my earliest pieces of SoC and reading it again...i can see the morality aspects running through the characters sprawling monologue of a confession. this was not planned.
I realized I had another question : is the lack of moral reasoning in contemporary fiction a result of unexamined moral codes (the hero is doing good because that’s what good guys do, and his goodness will never face a challenge) or because of a total lack of a moral center? I’m struggling to identify fiction that doesn’t have some sort of moral center. I suppose GoT is the big one people always put forward. I think one of the reasons he can’t finish the series is that it’s hard to wrap up that kind of story. What will it end up saying? And the show tries to paste on a totally unearned moral ending. But still, despite it being fantasy, it’s still a pretty good depiction of the world we actually live in, just as Blood Meridian was. Not seeing a lot of morality playing out on the National or international stages right now.
I keep going back to Demon Copperhead, the only big literary novel I’ve read lately. Though the hero is drug-addicted and shacks up with his girlfriend, I found it a very moral novel, with the hero wrestling with moral questions throughout.
Your view of the Judge and his morality is a postmodern one! No moral absolutes, only personal or maybe community-based moral codes.
I was struggling to think of a postmodernist novel that lacks a moral center (I obviously haven’t read all of them), and I just realized it’s this one. I once heard Blood Meridian described as the most moral novel because there’s no morality other than what the reader brings to it. Of course, that makes it possible for a reader to view the Judge as the good guy. You had a bit of sleight of hand in claiming that the Judge can be both moral and evil. But if he’s evil, isn’t it because he’s operating with the wrong moral code, one that drives him to do things that violate our own moral code?
I’m looking forward to your piece on meta modernism. I’ve just seen that there are a few books with that in the title and I hope your essay will let me avoid reading them.
Thaddeus, as a Christian myself, I’ve often found overtly Christian pop media, especially from the 20th century onward, to be saccharine and predictable. I’m not targeting Protestant material specifically; I’m thinking of the kinds of books you’ll find in most church bookstores here in Romania. Many are paired with apocalyptic tracts lamenting how far the world has strayed, as if prophecy were just another publishing genre.
Now, regarding the Judge—and not to self-promote on your page (you’ve already been more than generous in that regard)—I’m currently working on an essay series that examines his morality through the lens of Lucian Blaga’s philosophy, particularly his notion of divine censorship: the idea that the most profound truths of existence are veiled precisely so that we might participate in creation, not merely receive it. Viewed this way, the Judge’s terrifying lucidity becomes something far more metaphysical... perhaps even transgressive in a theological sense. He is not merely evil; he is a being who sees too much.
This might be my favorite essay you've written, but I'm not sure I can get past moral philosophy boring you to tears. Lol! Have you read The Righteous Mind? Fascinating!
Felt the same about Christian movies. Got the same vibe from the Netflix show "Nobody Wants This," which was so clearly invented in laboratory to combat antisemitism. The characters were likeable enough and some jokes were good, but there were all these scenes like "what is Shabbat? Well, let me tell you what Shabbat is." The story was completely secondary to the lessons. Which, of course, is your point. Characters with a morality struggle are actually the opposite of a morality lesson.
I really appreciated this essay. I agree with you (now that I think about it) regarding this question of morality. I have long felt that something is missing from what I see in bookstores, but did, as you suggest, always chalk it up to style, prose, etc. But you're right, and actually, I think my previous more vague sense might be linked to what you're saying in a more specific way. It's perhaps more difficult to write strong, clear, thoughtful prose if the person you're writing ABOUT and have invented is not a clearly defined person with a clearly defined personal moral code. I had not thought much about any of this in this way and I appreciate your pointing it out. :)
"When the smoke cleared, the pirate was on his back in the skiff, nearly decapitated and missing both forearms. The prow of the skiff had taken some damage, too, and the helmsman came about and headed for the mothership. If he kept the prow high, he might make it.
One dead. How many more?
My captain and Silva just witnessed me kill a man. How would they respond? I had no idea, and no time to spare to examine my own feelings."
...
"I woke that night halfway between midnight and dawn, the lowest ebb of a normal cycle. I could not get back to sleep. I kept going over and over in my mind the actions of the day. What could I have done differently? What did I miss?"
I think Flannery O'Connor did a fantastic job of crafting extremely rigid characters who get thrown into situations where they must either break or grow. Highly agree that the conscience, misshapen or whole, is largely missing from character development nowadays.
A good example, less literary of course, is what Sam Spade tells Bridget O'Shaunessy at the end of The Maltese Falcon. Throughout the film we are told much about Sam's partner, how he is married to a wife who doesn't love him, and how he womanized (You saw her first, Sam, but I spoke first, is a line Archer delivers and gets him killed.) Sam doesn't look at the body of his dead partner, and even sleeps with Iva. Archer's wife. Yet, in the end, he tells the woman he allegedly falls in love with, he's 'sending her over' when she confesses that she killed Archer. She begs and cries, and tells him he's joking, but he isn't. Bye-bye Bridget.
And that's when he states his morality: When a guy's partner is killed he's got to do something. He sacrifices his love/lust for Bridget because everything in him doesn't want to ... he knows their relationship is doomed because she 'will have something" on him. In other words, he can never trust her. Their love is the "stuff that dreams are made of." But foremost, he has to give Archer justice, really, even though he was a rotter: Archer was his partner. He owes him a duty that transcends his wanting Bridget.
A feminist might say, it's the "man code," that motivates Sam. A psych might say there a gay aspect to Sam's loyalty. An absolutist might say, Sam's a hypocrite because his duty does not extend to refusing to use Archer's wife. Until we find out she's cheated on Sam, too. But, there's a raw truth in the story. Everyone has a line that cannot be crossed, even if the line is a personal moral code one is unaware of until it's tested.
It's scenes like the one in Maltese Falcon that are most glaring missing from (at least) literary fiction: easy decisions are not virtuous. Virtue isn't virtue unless there's a struggle to reject the easy.
Wonderful example
wow. i really must read something of his other than The Road. you always guve me a lot to ponder!
coincidentally...
i just restacked one of my earliest pieces of SoC and reading it again...i can see the morality aspects running through the characters sprawling monologue of a confession. this was not planned.
Excellent!
Great
Sorry to hit you with all these questions when you’ve been pulling all-nighters!
I realized I had another question : is the lack of moral reasoning in contemporary fiction a result of unexamined moral codes (the hero is doing good because that’s what good guys do, and his goodness will never face a challenge) or because of a total lack of a moral center? I’m struggling to identify fiction that doesn’t have some sort of moral center. I suppose GoT is the big one people always put forward. I think one of the reasons he can’t finish the series is that it’s hard to wrap up that kind of story. What will it end up saying? And the show tries to paste on a totally unearned moral ending. But still, despite it being fantasy, it’s still a pretty good depiction of the world we actually live in, just as Blood Meridian was. Not seeing a lot of morality playing out on the National or international stages right now.
I keep going back to Demon Copperhead, the only big literary novel I’ve read lately. Though the hero is drug-addicted and shacks up with his girlfriend, I found it a very moral novel, with the hero wrestling with moral questions throughout.
There's a sense of goodness, but I've heard it explained as morality determined by how it makes us feel. I'm taking about a reasoned stance.
Maybe it's more common in literary novels?
Your view of the Judge and his morality is a postmodern one! No moral absolutes, only personal or maybe community-based moral codes.
I was struggling to think of a postmodernist novel that lacks a moral center (I obviously haven’t read all of them), and I just realized it’s this one. I once heard Blood Meridian described as the most moral novel because there’s no morality other than what the reader brings to it. Of course, that makes it possible for a reader to view the Judge as the good guy. You had a bit of sleight of hand in claiming that the Judge can be both moral and evil. But if he’s evil, isn’t it because he’s operating with the wrong moral code, one that drives him to do things that violate our own moral code?
I’m looking forward to your piece on meta modernism. I’ve just seen that there are a few books with that in the title and I hope your essay will let me avoid reading them.
Lol
I still don't know the essays fate. We will see.
Thaddeus, as a Christian myself, I’ve often found overtly Christian pop media, especially from the 20th century onward, to be saccharine and predictable. I’m not targeting Protestant material specifically; I’m thinking of the kinds of books you’ll find in most church bookstores here in Romania. Many are paired with apocalyptic tracts lamenting how far the world has strayed, as if prophecy were just another publishing genre.
Now, regarding the Judge—and not to self-promote on your page (you’ve already been more than generous in that regard)—I’m currently working on an essay series that examines his morality through the lens of Lucian Blaga’s philosophy, particularly his notion of divine censorship: the idea that the most profound truths of existence are veiled precisely so that we might participate in creation, not merely receive it. Viewed this way, the Judge’s terrifying lucidity becomes something far more metaphysical... perhaps even transgressive in a theological sense. He is not merely evil; he is a being who sees too much.
I can't wait to read it. Sounds fascinating.
This might be my favorite essay you've written, but I'm not sure I can get past moral philosophy boring you to tears. Lol! Have you read The Righteous Mind? Fascinating!
I haven't got very far along the moral philosophy road. I can't see throb the tears and keep swerving into a ditch.
That's fair. It's hard to get much writing done in a ditch.
Felt the same about Christian movies. Got the same vibe from the Netflix show "Nobody Wants This," which was so clearly invented in laboratory to combat antisemitism. The characters were likeable enough and some jokes were good, but there were all these scenes like "what is Shabbat? Well, let me tell you what Shabbat is." The story was completely secondary to the lessons. Which, of course, is your point. Characters with a morality struggle are actually the opposite of a morality lesson.
Don’t, he’s been written already.
I really appreciated this essay. I agree with you (now that I think about it) regarding this question of morality. I have long felt that something is missing from what I see in bookstores, but did, as you suggest, always chalk it up to style, prose, etc. But you're right, and actually, I think my previous more vague sense might be linked to what you're saying in a more specific way. It's perhaps more difficult to write strong, clear, thoughtful prose if the person you're writing ABOUT and have invented is not a clearly defined person with a clearly defined personal moral code. I had not thought much about any of this in this way and I appreciate your pointing it out. :)
I've read The Road, but not this one. I need to!
"When the smoke cleared, the pirate was on his back in the skiff, nearly decapitated and missing both forearms. The prow of the skiff had taken some damage, too, and the helmsman came about and headed for the mothership. If he kept the prow high, he might make it.
One dead. How many more?
My captain and Silva just witnessed me kill a man. How would they respond? I had no idea, and no time to spare to examine my own feelings."
...
"I woke that night halfway between midnight and dawn, the lowest ebb of a normal cycle. I could not get back to sleep. I kept going over and over in my mind the actions of the day. What could I have done differently? What did I miss?"
https://open.substack.com/pub/dakelly/p/2020-07-18-warning-shots-12