Finding Joy in Great Books

Let’s start by getting this out of the way: The Brothers Karamazov, by Dostoevsky is a Great Book (you also knew that).  

Not only is it Great, it is perhaps the Greatest Novel Ever Written.  I think its only competitors for that status are Pride and Prejudice and Middlemarch.  Maybe War and Peace.

After reading it 4 or 5 times, I still find it brilliant from beginning to end, gripping, thoughtful, and amazingly fun to read.   Everything you could possibly want in a novel.  If you have never read it, do so.  You won’t regret it.  Get the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation. (Unless you can read Russian, in which case get the original.)

So, what does one write about the Greatest Novel Ever Written?  The problem here is not a paucity of things to say, but a surfeit of topics.  Pick a page and start your mind wandering—it will go interesting places.

So, let’s take the very end:

   “Well, and now let’s end our speeches and go to his memorial dinner.  Don’t be disturbed that we will be eating pancakes. It’s an ancient, eternal thing, and there is good in that, too,” laughed Alyosha. “Well, let’s go! And we go like this now, hand in hand.”
   “And eternally so, all our lives hand in hand! Hurrah for Karamazov!” Kolya cried once more ecstatically, and once more all the boys joined in his exclamation.

Eating pancakes.  At the end of a novel exploring the deepest philosophical matters which have occupied the mind of man, the eternal, ancient questions, they head off to eat pancakes at a memorial dinner.  Pancakes.  Simple, basic pancakes.

I was thinking about those pancakes when I read an essay by C.S. Lewis: “Christianity and Literature” (reprinted in The Seeing Eye).  The essay itself is a bit of a mess—Lewis is trying to figure out how Christianity and Literature connect, and his answers are tentative and terribly unsatisfying. But he made the following observation toward the end which startled me with its relationship to those pancakes I had been pondering. 

The Christian will take literature a little less seriously than the cultured Pagan: he will feel less uneasy with a purely hedonistic standard for at least many kinds of works.

Lewis’ reasoning leading to this conclusion is a bit wobbly. (“The unbeliever is always apt to make a kind of religion of his aesthetic experience” while the Christian knows his aesthetic experiences are not as important as the salvation of mankind, so things like literature are smaller and thus easier to simply enjoy. Like I said, wobbly.)  

But, set Lewis’ reasoning aside and just think about the premise: how seriously should we take literature?

An aside before getting back to Dostoevsky.  I teach courses using Great Books at Mount Holyoke whenever I can figure out a way to sneak one into the curriculum.  To say these courses are not popular with my colleagues in the Humanities would be an understatement.  Their (my colleagues) principal complaint: here is an economist (insert tone of disgust) talking about…Literature or History or Philosophy.  What could I possibly know about…Literature?  Surely I don’t know enough Theory (said in hushed reverent tones) to be competent in discussing Literature.  

To which complaints, I invariably laugh and point out that Shakespeare was Great long before Derrida showed up to tell us how to take apart Shakespeare and find a nothing but a mirror for the obsession of the day of the 21stcentury academic.  Surely, we can all just read Shakespeare and, you know, enjoy him.  Surely enjoyment is part of the point of Great Books.  My colleagues in the Humanities find me utterly incomprehensible when I say things like this.  

Lewis again: “It thus may come about that Christian views on literature will strike the world as shallow and flippant.”  There is no doubt that “shallow and flippant” is exactly how my colleagues in the Humanities see my views on teaching Great Books.

The serendipitous shock I had on reading Lewis’ essay: this was exactly why I thought that pancake passage is so fascinating.  

Fyodor!  You just wrote The Greatest Novel Ever and you end by having your hero wander off to have pancakes with some kids??  After all the talk of Life and God and Meaning, you end your novel with pancakes?  

Which is, of course, exactly how I read Great Books—they are Great, Amazing, Worth Reading, Deep, Profound, Insightful, Etc., Etc., Etc.—but after setting them down, I go on with my life.  I don’t read Great Books Seriously; I read them for pleasure, including the pleasure of thinking thoughts I have never before thought and ruminating on unanswerable questions and learning new things.  And all that Learning is Important, Very Important, not because it is Serious, but because it is Joyful. 

That is exactly what I try to teach whenever I am teaching a course or giving a lecture (or, come to think of it, writing a blog post): this book is Awesome because reading it will bring you Joy.  

It is a message far too few teachers seem to understand.  I cannot think of anything more dreary that taking a positively amazing novel like The Brothers Karamazov and dissecting it according to the Dictates of Theory.  Give me the genuine human reaction to a book every time, give me the sense of rapturous joy or utter disgust with the argument, the parts that make you weep or cry, the shocks and twists, the parts that caused you to stop and just stare into space for half an hour—tell me about these things.  

And as we talk about those things we will learn something worth learning.  And then we will go eat pancakes and enjoy a pleasant conversation over a meal.  An ancient and eternal practice there.  To remember the dead, the past, and simultaneously take joy in the present.

Hurrah for Karamazov!  If this book has ever been taught and the students did not scream that at the end, then the teacher should be immediately removed from the classroom as a positive danger to mankind.   Hurrah for Karamazov! Read The Brothers Karamazov and eat pancakes.  That is about as good a recipe for the Good Life, the Life Worth Living, as I can imagine.  Hurrah for Karamazov!

The Quest for Answers

During graduation weekend, I gave a talk encouraging the students to never cease asking the important questions in life.  Questions like: Does your life have a purpose?  What is a Good life? 

A student stopped by the next day to talk about it.  She was worried.  How could she possibly ever find a definitive answer to hard questions like that?

My student’s question is an interesting one, but not for the reason she imagined. 

In the final chapter of Dorothy Sayers’ The Mind of the Maker, she makes a distinction between problems of the sort found in detective novels (of which she wrote some truly great ones, e.g., Gaudy Night) and “life-problems.” 

She notes there are four characteristics of a detective mystery.  People want to find these same characteristics in real life.  But, “because we are accustomed to find them in the one, we look for them in the other, and experience a sense of frustration and resentment when we do not find them.”

The four characteristics:

1. The detective problem is always soluble.

2. The detective problem is completely soluble.

3. The detective problem is solved in the same terms in which it is set.

4. The detective problem is finite.

Sayers is entirely correct about detective problems.  A mystery novel is completely unsatisfying if there is no solution, if there are loose, unexplained ends, if there is some deus ex machina needed to wrap the thing up, or if there is no finality.  We like mystery novels exactly because they give this sense of completeness.

But, then when we turn to the problems of life, none of these things exist. 

The answer to my student is quite simply that she may indeed never find a definitive answer to the important questions of life. 

That does not mean, however, that she should not constantly strive to find those answers.  The quest to find the answers matters.

Why should we spend our lives wrestling with overwhelming questions for which we may never find a satisfactory answer? 

First of all, we don’t have a choice.  Our minds seem to be built to be constantly peering into the unknown to learn just a little bit more.  Our minds seem to be built to stare at the world in wonder.  Our minds seem to be built in a way the leaves us asking, “Why am I here?”

But, perhaps more importantly, we need to think about the unanswerable questions because it is very important to constantly remind ourselves that is it perfectly OK if we don’t have it all figured out. 

You see people all the time who try to wrap up all of life in a neat little ball, who have an answer to everything, who never want to say, “I don’t know.  I haven’t figured that out yet.” 

Such people, without really realizing what they have done, have set themselves up as a local deity, all knowing and all wise.

Sooner or later, however, the person who has it all figured out meets a question for which they do not and then what happens?  The walls go up.  The question is ruled out of bounds or trivialized or corrupted into something answerable.

Theology is far too often like that.  When we contemplate God, should we ever expect to figure Him out? 

You will never have all the answers. Acknowledge the existence of mystery. And then. never cease exploring that mystery even knowing you will never find all the answers.

The End of Work

I once mentioned to a friend of mine that I was determined to read more Hermann Hesse. 

He enthusiastically told me that I simply must read Beneath the Wheel, that it was by far his favorite book by what turns out to be one of his favorite authors. 

I had no idea that Hesse was among anyone’s favorite authors, let alone someone I knew, let alone someone I knew who didn’t dress in all black with black earrings and black fingernail polish.  (Truth be told, I have no idea why I associated Hesse with that particular type of person.  Really no idea at all.)

You don’t have to hunt hard for the thesis of this book.

Nor did it occur to any of them that a fragile creature had been reduced to this state by virtue of school and the barbaric ambition of his father and his grammar-school teacher.  Why was he forced to work until late at night during the most sensitive and precarious period of his life?  Why purposely alienated from his friends in grammar school?  Why deprived of needed rest and forbidden to go fishing?  Why instilled with a shabby ambition?  What had they not even granted him his well-deserved vacation after the examination?

Now the overworked little horse lay by the wayside, no longer of any use.

Yep, overworking young school children, turning the academic enterprise into drudgery and endless hours will destroy them.  By about a third of the way into this book, you know it won’t end well.

My first thought: I wish some of my students would read this book.  I have far too few students who know anything at all about the joy of learning.  Too many college students treat school work as nothing other than tedious, arduous tasks.  Why shouldn’t school be fun? 

My second thought: my first thought is wrong.  I wish some of my students would not read this book and actually learn that not all of life is having fun, but sometimes you have to, you know, work.  Sometimes, you have to spend some long hours (yes, hours, not minutes) studying. 

My third thought:  one thought does not fit all.

My fourth thought: one thought does not fit any.  As I ponder the book, I realize that I have a hard time connecting the details of our protagonist’s life with the modern age. 

I have students who are too obsessed with grades, far too obsessed with grades, students who take no joy in school, who in one sense feel just like our protagonist in the way they see school work as something which chains you to a desk to learn ever more, but who seem to miss out on the rest of life because they are so obsessed with learning exactly what needs to be learned for a class and nothing else.   But, it is rare that those are also the students who work the hardest in a class. (This may be a product of the place where I work; it may be different at other schools.  Indeed, there is reason to think that it may be different elsewhere.) 

I have other students who are a bit too obsessed with recreational activities, who take their school work lightly, and who could benefit from, you know, working.  But those are rarely the students who are actually most enjoying their leisure; 14 hours of Netflix and social media per day is not as enjoyable as it might sound.

The longer I ponder this, the more I realize: the idea of work is dead in educational institutions. What is the proper end of work?  I suspect very few students could offer an answer, even a bad answer, to that question.

And what about those of us who are no longer students?  We work to earn a wage.  For some of my friends, it is obvious what constitutes the end of their work.  For college professors?  Ah, therein lies the rub: what is the end to which the work of a college professor should strive?

How to be a Good Friend

What is Friendship?  That is one of those questions which I instinctively answer, “It’s obvious,” but whenever I read something about the matter, I think the essay I just read misses the point. 

Consider Plato’s Lysis, his dialogue on Friendship.

Not a very good work if one evaluates a work of philosophy on the criterion of providing an answer which is even worth considering.  Nothing here on that front.  A decent work if one uses the criterion of whether it has the possibility of provoking thought on an interesting subject, but the work is strained by the absurdity of the way Socrates spends far too much time asking if the fact that Like should be friends with Unlike and not Like, means that Good cannot be friends with Good.  But since Good cannot be friends with Not Good, then how can friendship exist? 

Such is the sort of argument that gives philosophy a bad name.  It gets worse when he proceeds to define the nature of Friendship by asking whether the Body is Friend to Health and then works out the implications for that Friendship between Body and Health on Friendship between two humans.

So (news flash) Plato fails to give an answer here.  But Montaigne’s essay on Friendship is not much better, arguing as it does that you can only have one Friend and that it obviously can’t be someone of the opposite sex. 

Bacon does better by limiting his essay to the benefits of friendship, but leaves the question of a definition alone. 

Emerson—uh, when did Emerson ever define anything?

Aristotle?  By the time he is done dissecting Friendship, I have learned a lot, but it looks so lifeless on the lab bench. 

Cicero does a decent job in his essay on the subject, but like all Cicero, it leaves me wanting a bit more. 

Why is Friendship so hard to Define?  As I think about it, I stumble on a related problem—is Friendship the same as Love?  Is love necessary and sufficient for friendship?  Or are they different?  Can you have a friend you do not Love?  Odd idea.  Can you love someone who is not your friend?  Well, Christ does say “Love Your Enemies,” but does that make them your friends?   

And then there are all those types of friendships; my wife is my friend—my best friend, no less—but I have other friends too.  Are these different classes or different degrees of friendship?

This troubles me.  It should be easier than this.

And, it leads to the more practical concerns.  If Friendship is a Good—and I think it is self-evident that Friendship is a Good—then it seems like we have a moral obligation to be perfect in our Friendships. 

So, imagine you resolved to be the best Friend you could be to everyone who is a friend of yours.  The best possible friend.  What would you do?  Is such a thing even possible?  As soon as I start puzzling over how to be the best possible friend to everyone I consider a friend, I realize that my immediate thoughts turn toward things involving Time, which as much as I might like it to be otherwise, does come in fixed quantities. 

If I wanted to be the best friend possible for my wife (as noted above, my best friend), then how can I also spend the appropriate amount of time being the best possible friend to all my other friends?  Is it enough to be there when they call?  Or does be the best possible Friend involve more proactivity?

The longer I think about this, the more I realize I have significant failings as a Friend.  Maybe this is why Montaigne wrote his silly essay—if I define Friendship in such a way that I can only have one friend, then my problem is solved.

But, then what about all my other friends?  They aren’t just acquaintances after all.  They are my Friends.  Sometimes, maybe most of the time, I’m just not a very good friend.  I’m not being maudlin or anything here—and I am certainly not fishing for “Oh, you aren’t so bad” comments; just as a philosophical matter, I am not sure a) what defines friendship or b) how to be a perfect friend, and thus it is hard to see how I could be doing a very good job at this. 

Another way of putting it, I am not sure how anyone else could be doing a good job at this either—does anyone think they are the Perfect Friend? 

Now my inability to conceive of the existence of a Perfect Friend (Well, OK except a Friend who is Fully God…but that’s cheating), does not excuse my failings as a Friend.  After all, I cannot imagine a sinless life, yet I should still aspire to perfection in all things.  That would seem to include perfection in friendship.  I’m just not sure how to go about this.  How do I stop being such a bad friend?

Perfect Gift for College Students

If you are looking for a graduation gift (high school or college), here it is.

If you are looking for a gift for a student still in college, here it is.

Charles Murray’s, The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Getting Ahead: Dos and Don’ts of Right Behavior, Tough Thinking, Clear Writing, and Living a Good Life.

Every student I know or have ever known would benefit immensely, immensely, from reading this book. 

Indeed, in all honesty, I cannot think of a book of advice I would more whole-heartedly endorse for a college student than this one.  I feel an acute sense of guilt that I do not be hand this book to all my students.  They would benefit so much from it.

Now I do have quibbles with the book.  Most importantly, the title. 

Having read the book, the title makes perfect sense.  But before I read it, I had the wrong impression. That wrong impression will limit the number of people who read this book.  That is a tragedy. 

This is not a book for curmudgeons on how to get ahead.  It is a book by a curmudgeon giving advice to everyone, curmudgeon or not. 

As Murray notes, the world is full of curmudgeons.  Curmudgeons, in fact, are the people who will be hiring you.  You will meet them all the time. 

Curmudgeons judge you.  You may not like it, you may wish they didn’t, but they do. 

Curmudgeons judge you because your behavior is not very good.  You are squandering your life.  You are obsessed with silly things. 

For example, you think judging is bad; curmudgeons judge you for such soft, brainless thinking. 

You don’t understand proper grammar, you don’t know how to rewrite or proofread, you don’t dress well (ouch!), and it all adds up to you don’t know how to interact with people older and wiser than you. 

This book will tell you how to improve yourself.  The improvements will be dramatic.  And they will make you happier.

It’s that last bit which really jars most of my students.  In an age in which happiness is confused with doing whatever you want at the present moment, the whole idea that reforming your actions now so that you can build a deep and satisfying life later on is anathema.  And, particularly galling is the idea that anyone can tell you what will make you happy in the long run. 

Well, we curmudgeons can tell you what will make you happy in the long run.  We can easily tell you because we are wise.  Indeed, our wisdom is what makes us curmudgeons.  We see so much foolishness that we get terribly curmudgeonly.

What will make you happy?  Family, vocation, community, and faith.  You need all four. 

The modern liberal arts college prepares a student to achieve happiness in precisely zero of those four realms. 

We don’t ever, ever!, talk about family.  We don’t know the difference between “high paying and prestigious job” and “vocation,” and insist that the former is what matters.  We think “community” is Facebook and feel-good expressions of banal political correctness.  And faith?  Are you kidding?

It’s not just the deeper things and the way you present yourself that are the problem.  You are going about your life all wrong.  Leave home.  Do real work.  Stretch yourself.  Build resilience.  Don’t rush into a career.  Reflect often on good behavior.

Indeed, this book even has the bit of advice I spend more time giving students than just about anything else.  Stop worrying about your silly summer internship.  Internships don’t matter.  At all.  Nobody cares about your internship.  You will learn nothing at your “internship.” 

Just go get a real job, doing real work and enjoy your summer reading some books and watching some movies and interacting with people who are not carbon copies of yourself. 

Murray notes that there are a zillion summer resorts that want to hire college students for the summer.  Go get one of those jobs.  They will pay you and you will do low-skill work and you will learn more about yourself than you ever will filing papers on Wall Street for no pay. 

And, funny thing—you can still get that 20 hour a day Wall Street job if you really want it when you graduate, because, you see, nobody cares what you did last summer.

I could go on and on, but all this is doing is making me wish I was fabulously wealthy, so wealthy I could just start handing this book out to every student who walks into my office with her latest life crisis, to every student who is graduating, to every student is worried about her summer internship, to every student who is depressed about grades. 

This is the best book of practical wisdom I have ever read aimed at the college students of today. 

I hate modern books of practical wisdom (I am a curmudgeon).  I love this book.

Meditations on Leadership

Why do you want to be leader? 

Is there any reason to desire to lead?

Marcus Aurelius would like to have a word with you.

You want fame?

People who are excited by posthumous fame forget that the people who remember them will soon die too.  And those after them in turn.  Until their memory, passed from one to another like a candle flame, gutters and goes out.  But suppose that those who remembered you were immortal and your memory undying.  What good would it do to you?  And I don’t just mean when you’re dead, but in your own lifetime.  What use is praise, expect to make your lifestyle a little more comfortable?

Are you ambitious?

Ambition means tying your well-being to what other people say to do.  Self-indulgence means tying it to the things that happen to you.  Sanity means tying it to your own actions.

Are you upset about the way things are and want to change them? 

And why should we feel anger at the world? As if the world would notice!

Do you just want to make the world a better place? 

Don’t let your imagination be crushed by life as a whole.  Don’t try to picture everything bad that could possibly happen.  Stick with the situation at hand, and ask, “Why is this so unbearable?  Why can’t I endure it?” You’ll be embarrassed to answer.

And so, Marcus Aurelius, leader of the Roman Empire when the Roman Empire was Big, advises you in Meditations, a veritable manual on leadership.  If you are a leader, then lead.  If you are not, then don’t.

Do what nature demands.  Get a move on—if you have it in you—and don’t go worrying about whether anyone will give you credit for it.  And don’t go expecting Plato’s Republic; be satisfied with even the smallest progress, and treat the outcome of it all as unimportant.

Control your desire and you’ll be fine:

Start praying like this and you’ll see.
Not “some way to sleep with her”—but a way to stop wanting to.
Not “some way to get rid of him”—but a way to stop trying.
Not “some way to save my child”—but a way to lose our fear.
Redirect your prayers like that, and watch what happens.

Aurelius asks us why we care so much about being a leader.  Marcus Aurelius is surprisingly popular with my students. To be sure, they didn’t like the Stoic extreme. But some sort of Stoic-light? They would enjoy that.  

Is there a half-way house here?  Can you sort of give up the desire to be a leader—can you just sort of want to be a leader and still be a good leader? 

If Aurelius is right, the desire to have things as they are not is doomed to lead you to misery. 

All of which makes it an interesting question for a leader—if the goal is to accept things as they are, then to what exactly is one leading?  How do you reconcile the seemingly tautological statement that “A leader must lead somewhere” with the Stoic belief that there is no point in wishing things were different than they are. 

Is it even possible to lead like that?  Doesn’t leadership necessarily mean wanting to control things outside of your own desires?

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial