Good Things (According to Ben’s quote from pgs 201-202):
The embrace of loved ones. Reunion of the family (victory). Smiles. Laughter. Joy. Exuberance of the family pet. It seems as though goodness in this passage has nothing to do with saving Earth...or any other planet...from The Black Thing. All that matters are the needs of the family. I find this to be extremely frustrating. It’s a bit selfish I’d say! I’m surprised the entire family (plus Calvin) doesn’t just tesser off to a planet without Darkness and call it quits!
Evil: “‘From what you’ve told me it’s because Charles Wallace thought he could deliberately go into IT and return. He trusted too much to his own strength’” (159). Here is the reason why the Best of the Best succumbed to IT--pride and arrogance (98). The Mrs. W’s were absolutely right. Since Charles Wallace was the enlightened child, he thought he could defeat IT and save his father on his own.
L’Engle seems to be arguing that whether a person is good or evil heavily depends on whether or not they have a support system to keep them in check, like a fully-functioning family. The family unit signifies good, and Charles Wallace’s decision to “leave” his sister and Calvin and act independently led to his downfall. It’s very much a “Together we stand. Divided we fall” argument. It seems as though “Us” is the community (the family unit). “Them” are the individuals (meaning the people now controlled by IT)...which is ironic, because the people who chose to act independently of their support systems ended up in a new group completely lacking individuality. I’m not sure what “It” is in this context.
I don’t find L’Engle’s conception of good and evil to be helpful. I don’t agree that this family signifies good. How can it when it’s failing to continue the universal fight against The Black Thing?! Furthermore, since I don’t like L’Engle’s definition of “good,” this together-we-stand-divided-we-fall idea is not a very convincing argument. I think I’d rather be that individual who ignorantly succumbs to darkness than be part of a family which knowingly ignores evil.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When reading I did not see what you saw but I LOVE your view. I was so happy that everyone was safe and reunited, I too did not think about the other planets in darkness. I was preoccupied with what Meg wanted that I never thought about the rest of the universe. I was so fixated on the family having a happy ending I did not think about what that was suppose to signify to me.
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at your reading I see where the family is supposed to signify good. I believe that the quirks that made Meg different are what saved them. I want to believe that her individuality is what L’Engle is saying is good. I feel the choosing of the two children who were a little different from the others to save their father, demonstrated how it is alright to be different. Meg, Charles Wallace, and Calvin’s quirks are what made it possible for them to take on the task of getting Mr. Murray back. I think that being independent is not the down fall of Charles Wallace. Mr. Murray was independent. He left home to work on tesseract. He tesseract after the other scientist had been gone for a year. Mr. Murray was independent enough not to give into IT. I do not believe being independent was Charles Wallace fault I think was arroganc.