existential literary theory primer & analysis of the sparrow by maria doria russell
DESCRIPTION
A primer on Existentialism followed by an analysis of Existential struggle within The Sparrow.My senior thesis in Senior Seminar. UIW 2009.TRANSCRIPT
Nicholas Baker
Dr. Shubnell
Senior Seminar
October 21st 2009
Existential Struggle in The Sparrow: Tragic Misconceptions and the Absurd
Maria Dorethea Russell’s The Sparrow is an excellent resource for the
application and discussion of existential literary theory. To properly understand
and apply these terms requires a discussion of existentialism due to both its abstract
nature and wide (and often conflicting) range of ideas. To cover the entire scope of
existentialism is the subject of hundreds if not thousands of books, but I will do my
best to provide a working knowledge of the ideas to be covered in this paper.
The term existentialism takes its meaning from its root word, existence. As
such existentialism is a philosophy of personal existence. French philosopher
Gabriel Marcel gave this term to this set of philosophies of existence almost 100
years after existentialist ideas began to appear in writing (Statemaster). Particular
attention is paid to the thoughts, emotions, and actions of individual people, and a
general rejection of rationalism’s implication of a perfect form deducible by reason.
It is important to note that existence is not synonymous with essence (Oaklander
11-13). It is the study of human experience as it relates to the individual. It is not a
generalized theory of what it means to be human. Existentialism is not a single set
of ideas or theories, but is in fact a name given to the ideas of a large number of
philosophers who have similar interests in the nature and meaning of existence.
Some philosophers like Jean-Paul Sarte take a distinctly atheist position, while
others, such as Kierkegaard have a theological bent. Despite the fact that
existentialism embodies a wide number of differing viewpoints, most of its
philosophers have a similar set of concepts that they wrestle with in their works.
The first of these concepts is the idea that, as Sarte describes it, “Existence
precedes essence” (Sartre, vii). This is basically saying that you are what you think
you are and you think about yourself like you do because of your past experiences
and not your human nature. It can also be described in a psychological fashion as
nurture over nature. An example of this is a person who, for example, kills a loved
one and becomes sick and wretched with guilt. He becomes an angry lonely recluse
and is sick much of the time. This person later gets total amnesia for some reason.
His personality rebounds to its old self until the amnesia wears off, at which time
the memory of his crime comes back to haunt (drive) him (Oaklander 226-227).
This is in direct opposition to the idea of essence preceding existence; it denies the
preeminence of a human nature. In Sartre’s essay Existentialism and Humanism he
explains the difference in thinking between an existentialist and a rationalist using
the example of cowards and heroes:
If you are born cowards, you can be quite content, you can do nothing about
it and you will be cowards all your life whatever you do; and if you are born
heroes you can again be quite content; you will be heroes all your life, eating
and drinking heroically. Whereas the existentialist says that the coward
makes himself cowardly, the hero makes himself heroic; and that there is
always the possibility for the coward to give up cowardice and for the hero to
stop being a hero. (Sartre 49)
This idea of “you are what you think you are” does not to say that because
you think you are a bird you are. The idea that we are what we think we are must
be based in what is real (Oaklander 226-227). Not to take into account the plain
facts about what and who you are would be a denial of yourself because it would be
inauthentic. The effect –if true– of this concept is that humans are both free and
completely responsible their lives.
This absolute responsibility for your life can in turn cause existential
anxiety; "Anxiety is neither a category of necessity nor a category of freedom; it is
entangled freedom, where freedom is not free in itself but entangled, not by
necessity, but in itself" (Kierkegaard 145). Existential anxiety is a reference to
anxiety caused by the knowledge of the possibility that life in-itself may in fact be
meaningless (Olson 31). This term is not a reference to psychological anxiety that
people experience as a result of life pressures and fears, but is in fact its own class of
feeling. The use of the word anxiety can be misleading in this respect and as such it
has several other names. The two most common references to this aspect of
existentialism are “Angst” and “Dread.” The main difference between psychological
anxiety and existential anxiety is their source. Life pressures such as financial
situations, death of loved ones, fear, and pain can cause psychological anxiety.
Existential anxiety on the other hand is limited directly to anxiety related to the
meaning of life. An excellent example of existential anxiety can be see in the main
character of the self proclaimed “existential comedy” I Heart Huckabees. In this
movie the character has come to a place of existential despair because a series of life
failures had led him to question the meaning of living. He feels his actions have no
real meaning and feels smothered by the weight of this, “No, I think that I am going
to stay with her, and the cracks and the pain and the nothingness, because that's
more real to me, that's what I feel” (Swartzman). This feeling is not as a result of
daily struggle, but is instead fueled by a struggle with meaninglessness.
In existentialism the term Absurd is used to describe the meaninglessness of
life. The Absurd is encountered in a variety of ways in human life. The most
common of these is in what Alfred Camus calls the absurdity of daily living
(Oaklander 340). This is questioning what the meaning of our life is when we take
into account the inherent pointlessness of our daily routines. Life in-itself is
meaningless and any meaning we find in our daily life is self-imposed. Another facet
of absurdity is the unfairness of life, or namely the randomness of it. This is in direct
opposition of karmic modes of thinking, which state that there is an inherent
fairness to life. The implication of this concept is that the only meaning to be found
in life is the meaning that we as humans decide to give to it. This ties in with the
existential concept of freedom by giving total responsibility to each person for his or
her meaning of life (Oaklander 338-40).
Existential anxiety and the conditions that cause it can lead to existential
despair. Despair is a condition that occurs when the basic foundations of person’s
life have been uprooted and destroyed. Existential despair, like existential anxiety,
differs significantly from conventional despair though it can be a cause conventional
despair. When faced with existential despair a person has two choices. The first is
to give up and fall into a state of conventional despair and hopelessness. The second
is to accept the absurdity of the world and forge your own meaning
(economicexpert).
The final discussion necessary for a proper analysis of The Sparrow is a
discussion of the existential philosophy of Soren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard,
considered by many to be the father of existentialism, was a nineteenth century
Christian philosopher in Denmark. This is remarkable in that existentialism is
generally thought of as being atheistic in the vein of Sartre and Camus but in fact has
its roots in Christianity.
The simplest explanation of Kierkegaard is that he believed all knowledge
about the nature and existence of God is subjective and personal rather than
objective. Objective truths encompass things like mathematics, science, and history,
not God and the meaning of life. The existence of God cannot be proven in any
objective fashion, and any attempt to do so is disingenuous, “Woe to all those
unfaithful stewards who sat down and wrote false proofs” (Kierkegaard 104). Thus
Kierkegaard concludes that belief in God is in fact absurd in the literal sense because
it requires one to accept something as true that is inherently outside of provability.
The only reason one would believe in God is because one chooses or wants to. It is
an act purely of faith, not one of reason.
It may seem a contradiction, at first, for a person to believe in the basic tenets
of existentialism while also being a Christian. The meaninglessness of life seems a
problem in particular since standard Christianity finds its meaning within God. This
means that for the spiritually minded Christian, finding God is synonymous with
finding meaning in life. (During the analysis of the text it important to keep this in
mind since the main character’s search for meaning is framed within his search for
God. This means that existentialist terms --including those from atheistic
existentialists-- can be successfully applied to the characters experience. )
Kierkegaard’s position in this is that while there may in fact be a “larger” meaning
through God, we as limited humans are unable to ever know such a thing. The
“mind of God” is literally unknowable and any attempt to know God’s will/meaning
are futile. Thus for Kierkegaard, all meaning in life is apparent to us because we
create it, not because God gives it to the world inherently. The end result of this line
of thinking is that in practice Kierkegaard’s Christian existentialism differs very little
from its atheistic cousins, as both believe in the inherent meaninglessness of the
world.
The basic moral and philosophical question found within The Sparrow is “the
question of evil.” To be more specific this is the dilemma of how can God be a good
and loving God when evil things happen in the world. The main character in The
Sparrow, an initially agnostic Jesuit Priest named Emilio Sandoz is forced to confront
this when he is exposed to a series of horrific events that are existential absurdity in
its extreme. The resulting struggles are a good example of the quintessential
existential error of finding your meaning in outside things, including God. Existential
anxiety, isolation, and despair are the results of this error. He is forced to come to
terms with the fact that God may not be good and that truly knowing his mind is
impossible
To follow the course of Emilo’s existential struggle necessitates an analysis of
how Emilio started his life and what path he took to fill his life with meaning.
Without this it is impossible to understand both the unfoldment of his existential
struggle and the extreme nature of the absurdity he is exposed to on Rahkat.
Emilo Sandoz grew up in a poor Puerto Rican town called La Perla that
offered little in the way of finding deep meaningfulness. His life consisted of
violence, drugs, and sex at a young age, “It was an uphill battle in a place where
fathers told sons, “Anybody give you shit, cut his face”” (Russell 338). Emilio’s
father hated Emilio because he was a product of his mother’s infidelity and regularly
abused him, “My mother’s husband and I used to play a game called Beat the Crap
out of the Bastard” (Russell 338). For Emilio the result of this upbringing was an
ingrained comfort in chaos and a lack of purpose in his younger years. He started
out his life in of state of meaningless Absurdity and the existential anxiety this
caused can be seen in his penchant for acting out violently. During this time Emilio
was also attending a Jesuit school taught by D.W. Yarbrough, who was attempting to
mentor him. A drug deal went bad and as a result his brother went to jail. Emilio
had to leave the island and was unable to return because his brother blamed him for
the incident.
D.W Yarbrough arranged for him to attend a Jesuit high school in the United
States where he was more isolated and less accepted than he was in La Perla, “The
first few months in Jesuit high school were a shock. He was as far behind the other
students scholastically as he was ahead of the in raw experience. Few boys talked to
him, except to goad him, and he returned the favor” (Russell 106). As time goes on
he adjusts to his new residence and finds that the calm life of boarding school had its
benefits, “The quiet orderliness of life in the boarding school began to seduce him.
No crises, no sudden terror, no gunshots and screaming in the night. No beating.
Each day planned, no surprises. Almost in spite of himself, he did well in Latin”
(Russell 106). This comfortable life, free of the chaos and violence pushes him to
exceed. It becomes the first bit of real comfort and meaning he has ever
experienced. He is given a taste of relief from both existential and conventional
anxiety. As a result of this comfort, and a powerful religious dream, Emilo makes
the decision to join the Jesuit priesthood.
His previous chaotic life and its corresponding tension had conspired to
make the priesthood the perfect place for Emilo to find a sense of meaning, “Things
that drove other young men from the path to priesthood were balm to him: the ordo
regularis, the liturgical cadences, the quiet, the purposefulness. Even the Celibacy.
For looking back on his chaotic youth, Emilio had no experience of sex that was not
about power or pride or lust undiluted by affection” (Russell 107). This idea of
celibacy as one of Emlio’s pillars of meaning in life is particularly important in light
of his subsequent rape. It later becomes a pillar of his despair. This love of the
priesthood does not mean that Emilo has placed his meaning in God yet. He is in
fact an agnostic at this point, “ And yet, in all those years of preparation, the prayer
that had resonated most strongly in his soul was the cry, “ Lord, I believe. Help me in
my disbelief” (Russell 107).
Emilio eventually becomes a full priest and gets a PhD in Linguistics. He is
then sent on a series of missions that required him to learn a large number of
languages while in the field. During this time he is never allowed to stay long
enough to feel like he is doing any real good because as soon as he learned a
language he is shipped off to another place, “I felt like my education was being
squandered. Nothing made sense to me” (Russell 287). He is once again placed in a
position where he is forced to face the possible absurdity of life. The Existentialist
answer to the anxiety this caused him would have been acceptance of this absurdity.
This acceptance offers freedom from despair. He does come to this point when he
gets an assignment that exposes him to how trivial his personal absurdity is, ““And
then – well, professional irritation seemed pretty trivial...It was awful Anne. No time
for anything except feeding people. Trying to keep the babies alive” (Russell 287)
Emilio accepts the absurd within his personal situation and as a result finds himself
free of his own personal despair even though the emotional cost of that freedom is
rather high. He does not stay in this state for long. Instead of accepting absurdity as
the total state of existence, he finds a way to tie his experiences back into a state of
meaningfulness when he gets a final reassignment to report to an AI specialist at
John Carroll University, “Emilo, what is so funny?...”I’m sorry Tahad, it’s too hard to
explain,” gasped Sandoz, who was on his way to Cleveland to serve as intellectual
carrion for an AI Vulture, ad majorem dei gloriam. “It’s the punchline to a three-year
joke”” (Russell 21). It is significant that this experience is referred to as both a joke
and as majorem dei gloriam, or “for the greater glory of God.” Part of him
understands the absurd nature of the world and correctly laughs at it, while at the
same time rejecting the absurdity and placing meaning on it al la “for the greater
glory of God.” This is the first, but not the last time he sees what is happening to him
is a “joke.” The difference between this experience and later experiences of the
absurd is that this one had a “happy” ending. It makes for a simple and easy
explanation of his pain and trouble and it provides no real impetus to question the
foundations of his thinking. The problem with this tidy interpretation of events is
that it puts Emilio in a mindset that the world has a greater meaning through God;
that everything works out in the end. In the existential sense this is where Emilio
begins exhibiting his tragic existential misconception of insisting the universe
makes sense. It becomes a crutch that he cannot live without and eventually
crushes him in despair.
Time moves on for Emilio and he finds himself friends with a group of people
who become a family to him. One of these people, Jimmy Quinn, is an astronomer
working for SETI. One night Jimmy comes across a signal that turns out to be an
alien radio station. Emilio sees this discovery as a sign they should attempt a
mission to the planet. His first impulse, as a result of his experience in the Sudan, is
to see a random set of confluent events as a sign of God’s grand and benevolent plan,
“None of them could have known what he was thinking, how much this reminded
him of that evening in Sudan when he read the Provincial’s order sending him to
John Carroll” (Russell 96). With this in mind he set in motion a series of events that
lead to the Jesuits planning a mission to the new planet.
As the mission is planned and prepared for by the Jesuits, Emilio’s growing
conviction that God has a plan and that he himself is an agent of this plan becomes
self re-enforcing. A series of fortuitously solved problems during preparation for
the mission are automatically interpreted by Emilo as a sign God’s divine will, “and if
the speed of the events scared him, the precision with which the pieces were falling
into place was even more unnerving” (Russell 111). This is not to say that he is
completely convinced it really is God, but he has already set the ball in motion that
forces him to interpret all events through this flawed “meaning through God” lens.
An excellent example if this comes when there is a problem obtaining some
materials to make the lander capable of surviving re-entry. The materials, due to
military needs, were unavailable until a government that had ordered up what was
available dissolved, leaving the materials open for purchase. Because of his mindset
Emilio interprets this as a case of “Deus Vult” (God wills it) instead of the fortuitous
but meaningless and random event that it is, “Emilio Sandoz smiled and said, “See?
Deus Vult”” (Russell 141).
During the mission, right before they land on the planet for the first time,
Emilio has an experience that causes him to place all of his meaning and
understanding in the idea of a God that gives meaning to life, “for D. W Yarbrough
and Emilio Sandoz, this voyage had given meaning to random acts, and to all the
points where they had done this and not that, chose one thing and not another, to all
their decisions, whether carefully though out or ill considered” (Russell 189). This
affects him in such a way that he is described as falling in love with God, “he felt the
void fill and believed with all his heart that his love affair with God had been
consummated” (Russell 189). The others in the party notice this and D. W
Yarbrough goes as far to make this statement, “Today I may have looked upon the
face of a saint” (Russell 237). Perhaps the most telling and ironic statement is
Sofia’s playful accusation, “You are drunk on God, Sandoz” (Russell 261). This idea
of drunkenness is a perfect analogy for the state of Emilio’s intellect. He is drunk on
the idea that God has given the world perfect meaning. As a result he is living his life
in an elated and intoxicating illusion that will give way to a nasty hangover when the
illusion is broken. He is riding the euphoric drug of false understanding without
understanding the price he will later pay for his mindset. Just like alcohol, this false
security is addicting and the addict will often rationalize anything in an attempt to
keep using. This can be seen in Emilio’s constant return to rationalizing both good
and bad event as meaningful.
After some time on the planet everyone in the mission, including Anne the
proclaimed agnostic, believes that the mission cannot fail because God is watching
over them, “God who has begun this will bring it to perfection, Anne thought, and
shivered with warmth” (Russell 224). This notion is challenged when Alan Pace
dies for no apparent cause, but not very much. The event is not personal enough
(Alan was not well liked) to truly challenge any theodicy or sense of meaning within
Emilio. Anne is the only one who questions God’s role in the meaning of death, ‘Why
is it God gets all the credit for the good stuff, but it’s the doctor’s fault when shit
happens” (Russell 189).
Alan Pace’s death is not by any means the last experience of absurdity that
the mission is subjected to. They become stranded on the planet after accidentally
using up too much fuel. D. W. Yarbrough gets chronically sick and then a “poacher”
kills both him and Anne. Jimmy, Sofia, and her unborn child are killed defending
Runa children when the Jana'ata (who are raising the Runa as meat) come to
slaughter the Runa’s “illegal” children. The absurdity of this is even greater because
the Runa gave birth to these illegal children because they copied the human’s
garden, disturbing Jana’ata’s food supply method of population control. Emilo and
Marc are then captured and fed what turns out to be the meat of the Runa children
that were killed. Marc and Emilio are then “rescued” by a friend only to have their
hands surgically maimed as the result of a simple mistranslation. Finally, Marc dies
as a result of the surgery and Emilio is sold into slavery. The human’s committed no
great sin to be punished and yet tragic things happened to them. This is the
unfortunate nature of the absurd in action; it ignores all facets of karma.
Despite this Emilio continues to cling to the hope that God truly has a
purpose and meaning for the pain and suffering he and his friends have suffered.
This can be seen in his reaction right before he is raped by none other that Halavin
Keitheri, the singer whose voice inspired Emilio to believe God wanted them to
travel to Rahkat,
“And then, suddenly, everything made sense to him, and the joy of the
moment took his breath away. He had been brought here, step by step, to
meet this man: Hlavin Kirtheri, a poet—perhaps even a prophet—who all of
his kind might know the God whom Emilio Sandoz served. It was a moment
of redemption so profound he almost wept, ashamed that his faith had been
so badly eroded by the inchoate fear and the isolation. (Russell 390)
This is in stark comparison to Hlavin’s concurrent thoughts of sex with Emilio, “We
shall sing of this for generations” (Russell 394). Emilio’s rape is a powerful case for
the absurdity of life. As he later puts it, “I loved God and I trusted in His love.
Amusing, isn’t it?... I was raped. I was naked before God and I was raped” (Russell
394) Not only was he raped but the subsequent songs transmitted to earth were
actually pornography about his rape. He was a person who had given up sex in his
commitment to God. He had also given up his feelings of romantic love for Sofia, as a
gift to God. This absurdity of his situation is compounded when, in an attempt to
end his suffering, he decides to kill the next rapist who came though the door to his
cell. Instead of a rapist, it turns out to be Askama, a young Runa girl with whom
Emilio had taken up a father role. She is leading a group of humans from the UN to
come rescue him. He cannot stop himself in time and he kills what amounts to his
daughter, “She smiled at him, blood bubbling in the corner of her mouth and seeping
from a nostril. “You see, Meelo? Your family came for you. I found you for them.”
(Russell 297). The final insult is that the report sent back to earth along with Emilio
paints him as a whore and child killer. He returns to Earth to find everyone on his
planet hates him.
Emilio responds to this horrific series of events in classic existential fashion,
by falling into extreme and deep despair, “He had also discovered the outermost
limits of faith and, in doing so, had located the exact boundary of despair. It was at
that moment that he learned, truly, to fear God” (Russell 21). The pillar of meaning
is his life, the goodness of God, had been utterly and completely destroyed. He has
been exposed to the brutal reality of the cold unfairness of an absurd universe, “But
it wasn’t my fault. It was either blind, dumb, stupid luck from start to finish, in
which case, we are all in the wrong business, gentlemen, or it was a God I cannot
worship” (Russell 396). He refers the experience as farce and a sick joke, ”I’m afraid
I still have enough pride to deny God the punchline to whatever sick joke I’m playing
out now” (Russell 137) but is unaware of the irony that he also saw life this way
when good things happened to him, such as his reassignment to John Carroll.
Emilio is experiencing this intense emotional suffering and pain because he is
unwilling to give up the idea that the world makes sense in some way, “This will kill
me and then I can stop trying to understand” (Russell 130). This is not to say that
the experience would not have been horrible and painful, but that he would have
been able to accept it and move on. Instead, as a result of his misconception about
the meaning of life, he is tortured by the impossibility of reconciling his experience
with his belief. The logical answer to this is that his experience cannot change but
his beliefs can. He needs to take the advice of the Runa girl in his dreams, “He was
apologizing because though his hands were unharmed in the dream, he couldn’t
seem to do his magic tricks any longer... ‘Well,’ she said with the confident
practicality of the half grown, ‘learn some new tricks’” (Russell 128) The
existentialist position does not say that he has to give up his belief in God, only his
belief that everything in the world makes sense through God.
Emilio does not take this advice. Instead he continues on with his search for
meaning, “’I had a dream last night,’ he said quietly. ‘I was on a road and there was
no one with me. And in the dream I said ‘I don’t understand but I can learn if you
will teach me’” (Russell 404). This shows that this experience, despite its extreme
nature, was not enough to free Emilio from his misconception and it resulting
despair. He is like Isaac Jogues, the Jesuit predecessor he is compared to, “Beaten
regularly, his fingers cut off by the joint with clamshell blades – no wonder Jogues
came to his mind” (Russell 134). Jogues recovered from him wounds and returned
to the Mohawks where he was finally killed. Emilio will return to the mindset that
destroyed him the first time because he sees no other way of living. He it doomed to
repeat these rises and falls of belief and despair. Just as alcohol for the relapsing
alcoholic, the peace that the illusion of “meaning” offers is too much for him to
resist. Unfortunately it will steal the freedom and peace of mind he thinks it will
bring him, just as it did on Rakhat.
Works Cited
"Existentialism." EconomicExpert. n.d. Web. 4 Nov. 2009
<http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Existential:despair.html>.
" Christian Existentialism." Statemaster encyclopedia, n.d. Web. 4 Nov. 2009
<http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Christian-existentialism>.
Shwartzman, Jason, perf. I Heart Huckabees. By David O. Russell, and Jeff Banea.
2004. DVD-ROM.
Kierkegaard, Soren. "Works of Love: Some Christian Reflections in the Form of
Discourses." The Humor of Kierkegaard: An Anthology. Ed. Thomas C. Oden.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. 104. Print.
Oaklander, Nathan L. Existentialist Philosophy: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996. Print.
Olson, Robert G. Existentialism. New York: Dover Publications, 1962. Print.
Russell, Maria D. The Sparrow. New York: Random House Publishing, 2004. Print.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism Is a Humanism. 2nd ed. Paris: Editions Gallimard,
1947. vii, 49 Print.