Francis Phillips | Monday, 14 April 2008

Nothing to be Frightened Of

Darwinian materialism is a grey and dreary way to live, novelist Julian Barnes suggests in his recent memoir. 
There was a brief period in my youth when I practised yoga and acquainted myself with occult writers. One thought has stayed with me: these writers all warn against the “negative aura” emanating from certain people, an aura that drains the unwary of psychic vitality. Reading Julian Barnes’ latest work caused just such an experience; I had to wrestle with my thoughts in order to remain buoyant after reading it. I am sure the author had no such malign intent; a well-established member of the London literary scene with a string of applauded novels to his name (he has been three times shortlisted for the Man Booker prize) he is merely offering the reader an extended series of observations on death. These are the urbane conclusions of a cultured and well-stocked mind, responsive to music and art as well as to literature. So why did they leave me (literally) cold?

Perhaps because Barnes is very wrapped up in himself. John Ruskin once remarked that “a man wrapped up in himself makes a very small parcel”; navel-gazing does not thrill. Barnes’s musings are very thin gruel, related in a tone of low-key irony which is careful to avoid displays of emotion. Part of the book concerns his parents, their deaths, his childhood memories and his relationship with his brother, Jonathan, a philosopher (“I see my brother infrequently”). It is, in a way, a disguised autobiography, although the author insists on page 34 that this is not the case. Writing a straightforward autobiography, in which we ponder, as we all must, the influences that make us who we are, is not what a clever, postmodern writer does. It is too simple, like displaying feelings. What matters is to be detached from the material at hand (oneself) and to force the reader -– Barnes addresses us directly several times -– into a worldly and arid complicity.

It does not help that he brushes 2,000 years of Christianity to one side as an adolescent, without a moment’s thought: “You come into the world, look around, make certain deductions, free yourself from the old bullshit, learn, think, observe, conclude. You believe in your own powers and autonomy; you become your own achievement.” The “old bullshit” is traditional faith, something a writer heavily influenced by French post-Enlightenment authors cannot possibly take seriously -– though Barnes admits to “missing” the God he does not believe in. His mother thought religious belief “mumbo-jumbo”; his father was a closet agnostic. His description of their deaths is dispiriting, what one would expect of a “21st century, neo-Darwinian materialist”, as he describes himself. They are merely bundles of DNA, as we all are: what is the point of it all?

Yet Barnes yearns for significance, to be remembered, to make an impression. If he were a better writer he could invent a fiction of tragic alienation, as Camus does so brilliantly in L’Etranger, with its hypnotic opening lines: “My mother died today. Or was it yesterday?” But all we get in these pages is his dislike of his dominating mother -– “Wanting to see her dead came more, I admit, from writerly curiosity than filial feeling” -– his inability to express his affection for his father, his fraternal rivalry with his brother, who he suspects is cleverer than he is, and of course his dread of death.

His title, with its soothing suggestion of a nanny calming an overwrought child, is the opposite of the book’s contents. For Barnes, there is everything to be frightened of: possibly a modern death in hospital in the middle of the night (like his father), with all the attendant indignities (Velcro slippers in a bin bag); the anxiety of being forgotten; the fear of extinction.

Although “Of course Dawkins is right in his argument” he can provide Barnes with no consolation at this awful prospect. Christianity is simply “a beautiful lie” which, at some stage in the future, will join the long list of dead religions. Anxious to disassociate himself from his boring and bourgeois ancestry, a line of petty, unbelieving schoolmasters who have ended up in an ugly bungalow, the author claims his true bloodline is artists, writers and musicians. We all claim a certain kinship with the mighty dead whose works have affected us, yet the author who seems to have most influenced Barnes is the sceptical and ironical 19th century French novelist, Jules Renard, whose Journal is often quoted with approval in these pages. Renard wrote elsewhere such lines as, “I find when I do not think of myself I do not think at all”, “Dying serves no purpose so die now” and “Look for the ridiculous in everything and you will find it”, which suggest he is the author’s true spiritual master. Barnes even made a pilgrimage to his grave.

I would like to guide Barnes towards a less restrictive diet but I fear it is too late. Entropy stalks him. It is not his subject that enervates, for it is the task of poets to sing of love and death. After all, C.S. Lewis writes in a similar genre in his short series of reflections, A Grief Observed. This is a poignant and passionate lament for the loss of his beloved wife which will resonate with anyone who has had a similar experience. In contrast, Barnes shuffles through his fears -– and the philosophical futility of such fears -- like a deckchair attendant on the Titanic.

Francis Phillips writes from Bucks, in the UK.

Comments (11)

David Page said...
I think the problem here is hopelessness. Barnes is defining a kind of hopelessness. He needs to find the courage to keep searching anyway. What Francis Phillips misses here is that turning to a structured religious dogma is just as depressing, every bit as hopeless. I think Camus would be a much better focus for this discussion. There is value in his assertion that suicide is the only true question about the meaning of life. Using that criterion Barnes has already chosen life and should therefore just get on with it. One can then ask if those who have chosen religious dogma have chosen life, with all it's flaws and unanswerable questions? I think the answer is, no.

United States | Monday, 14 April 2008 at 8:44 pm

barry said...
What gets me about these sort of people, who seem so desperately obsessed with making the rest of us as unhappy as they are, is they offer us nothing; nothing but a life of wondering about it all until we die. Essentially their creed or philosophy is no more than a bleak enforced gaeity until its all over. They don't even offer us a material advantage in their unbelief. Like the rest of us they go through life with its pains, sorrows and joys and at the end of it all we die. If they are right, which I firmly believe they aren't, it doesn't matter because we will all just vanish into the ether. But if they are wrong they have inflicted upon themselves a fate of infinitely sad magnitude, a suffering that will never end, endless remorse at the loss of never ending unimagineable joy and the terrible knowledge it is self inflictewd, from which there is no escape. All one can feel for them is compassion and hope and pray they will literally see the light before it is too late.

Australia | Friday, 18 April 2008 at 8:28 pm

Daan van Schalkwijk said...
Dear David,
You say: "What Francis Phillips misses here is that turning to a structured religious dogma is just as depressing, every bit as hopeless."

As a believing biologist, my experience is that my fellow biologists are often so focussed on explaining natural life, that they exclude the possibility of supernatural life. Religion is then reduced to the 'religious dogma' you talk about. In reality, Christian religious dogma does nothing else then explicitly define the collective experience of supernatural life, and the revelation that explains it.

And hope indeed does not come from dogma. It does come from the experience of supernatural life: the Holy Spirit that works within us. All this is well explained in Spe Salvi, the last encyclical of Benedict XVI, which I wholeheartedly reccomend you to read. I also hope you can one day share in this experience, if only because we cannot hope to begin to understand the meaning of natural life without it.

Netherlands | Friday, 18 April 2008 at 9:12 pm

John K. said...
dogma
n
1. religious belief: a belief or set of beliefs that a religion holds to be true
2. group belief: a belief or set of beliefs that a political, philosophical, or moral group holds to be true

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

An emphatic statement of belief referencing a “Creator” more than qualifies as a religious dogma, even if it is also part of a larger political and philosophical statement.

“One can then ask if those who have chosen religious dogma have chosen life, with all it's flaws and unanswerable questions? I think the answer is, no.”

I believe George Orwell’s rather trenchant comment about the beliefs of intellectuals applies here.

United States | Friday, 18 April 2008 at 10:14 pm

Electra lofts said...
As a believing biologist, my experience is that my fellow biologists are often so focussed on explaining natural life, that they exclude the possibility of supernatural life. Religion is then reduced to the 'religious dogma' you talk about. In reality, Christian religious dogma does nothing else then explicitly define the collective experience of supernatural life, and the revelation that explains it.

Canada | Saturday, 19 April 2008 at 2:52 am

David Page said...
Daan Van Schalkwijk said: "And hope indeed does not come from dogma. It does come from the experience of supernatural life: the Holy Spirit that works within us. All this is well explained in Spe Salvi, the last encyclical of Benedict XVI, which I wholeheartedly reccomend you to read. I also hope you can one day share in this experience, if only because we cannot hope to begin to understand the meaning of natural life without it."

I don't know that much about the new Pope. I think his failure to come to Boston can't be described as a profile in courage. I won't criticize his membership in the Hitler Youth because I would have done the same thing in similar circumstances to protect my family.

I have a question for you. Do you think that my unwillingness to accept Christianity without proof is a character flaw? If the answer is yes, then why? Would it be better for me to pretend to believe? I'm not being facetious. It's a serious question. Why would God care?

United States | Saturday, 19 April 2008 at 7:53 am

Daan van Schalkwijk said...
Dear David,

Thank you for your question, it is very open-hearted. I do not think that unwillingness to accept Christianity without proof is a character flaw. It is intellectual honesty. But unwillingness to examine the evidence in favor of Christianity might be. And although you might not be aware of it, such evidence exists.

If you would like my advice, I would recommend you to read the four gospels, diving into the scene as if you were a part of it. If you then notice how Jesus behaves towards you, you'll find out that God cares. Of course that will not take away the 'theoretical' obstacles you have. For that you might want to have a look at http://www.peterkreeft.com under 'Featured Writing'. A profound summary of the Catholic faith can be found in the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic church, also completely online. It will take some reading, but these fundamental questions are worth the investment.

Finally, with respect to the Pope. I think both his meeting with victims of abuse and his speech to the United Nations show ample courage. If you read his biography you will see that he was never part of the Hitler youth, but was drafted into the army like any German young man at the time. When the possibility presented itself, he deserted because of his opposition to the regime. At the moment he is one of the brightest intellectuals alive. Read Spe Salvi and you will see...

Netherlands | Saturday, 19 April 2008 at 8:10 pm

David Page said...
Daan Van Schalkwijk said: "If you would like my advice, I would recommend you to read the four gospels, diving into the scene as if you were a part of it. If you then notice how Jesus behaves towards you, you'll find out that God cares."

I did read the entire New Testament in order. I was left with the strong impression that Jesus and his disciples expected the world to end in their lifetimes. I found Jesus to be an extraordinary man, way ahead of his time. I wasn't convinced he was the son of God.

The Pope was a member of Hitler Youth. Before that he was a member of another youth organization dedicated to furthering Nazism. All of this was mandatory. His air defense battery defended a factory where slave labor was used. He witnessed Jews being rounded up by the Gestapo. If you think he couldn't have done anything tell it to Sophie Scholl.

United States | Wednesday, 23 April 2008 at 8:43 am

John Thomas said...
Am I the only one, or has anyone else noticed it? I refer to the irrational, curious, oddity whereby atheists/materialists (such as the one detailed in this article) fear death? One comes accross this strange phenomenon time and again. If you're convinced that this existence is all that there is, then the "certainty" (as you would consider it) that you will cease to exist, cease to have any consciousness of anything, on death, then how can it be anything to fear? Odd indeed. Surely the recurrence of this phenomenon must reveal something. Is it that the materialists at some level know that, really, there actually is something else, but they can't/won't admit it or face it? Or is it that they are so wrapped up in themselves (suggested here, in this example) that the world without themselves is a terrifying thought to them? Or is it just that death's confirmation of the futility of everything (by their own belief system) makes them actually in fear of life, and its length, drawn-out-ness? I don't know the answer (I've never had any fear of death whatever; maybe that's something to do with being a Christian) - any ideas out there?

-- | Thursday, 24 April 2008 at 1:54 am

Daan van Schalkwijk said...
Dear David,

I owe you a rectification. I went back to the Pope’s biography, and he does mention being forced to participate in the Hitler youth. Some friends of mine made me aware that he talked about this quite openly last week in New York. I think that shows great humility.

I am glad you read the Gospel, and that you found Jesus to be an extraordinary man. But if he was not the Son of God, then I am afraid I have to disagree with you. The main reason for the Jews to kill Him was that He made Himself equal to God. For a normal man to do such a thing would make him either a presumptuous liar or a madman. So I think he is either one of these two or the Son of God. But I can’t make the choice for you…

I think this subject has a lot more to it. But I am not sure whether this is the place to continue discussing. I would recommend you to find someone in your environment that is a convinced, believing and practicing Catholic, and ask him how he reads the bible. It may be very enlightening for you. If you don’t have someone like that in your environment, I may be able to help you locate someone.

To John:
I used to be a materialist, though slightly agnostic. Is it so strange that when you think all ends at death, you are afraid of it? We all want to keep on living ‘happily ever after’, but it is not until you meet Christ that you realize that this is a real possibility…

Netherlands | Thursday, 24 April 2008 at 9:25 pm

David Page said...
Daan Van Schalkwijk said: "The main reason for the Jews to kill Him was that He made Himself equal to God. For a normal man to do such a thing would make him either a presumptuous liar or a madman. So I think he is either one of these two or the Son of God."

Or, if you are familiar with the Jesus Project, he could have been just an extraordinary man. People don't need a special reason to kill other people in this world. By the way, if I kept my own council 500 years ago wouldn't I, in the eyes of the Church, be making myself the equal of God? Would I be a madman?
A heretic? Could I be put to death?

United States | Thursday, 1 May 2008 at 10:00 am

Page 1 of 1 :

New comment

Name:
Email:
Location:
URL:
0/2000
Remember my personal information
Notify me of follow-up comments?
Type the characters you see in the image below:

free updates

Email