'The truth shall make you free.' (John 8:32)
'What is truth?' (John 18:38)
The statement of Jesus and the question of Pilate are the t...more'The truth shall make you free.' (John 8:32)
'What is truth?' (John 18:38)
The statement of Jesus and the question of Pilate are the twin poles of Wise Blood. Each character in Wise Blood represents one of these two attitudes to the truth. Hazel Motes, the young man who follows in the footsteps of his repressive preacher father, rejects his father's dogmas and instead preaches 'the Church without Christ.' Denying sin and the necessity for redemption, he strives to free others from their guilt-complexes.
However, his insistence that a world without Christ a redeemer is the 'truth' runs up against several characters who are either seeking a redeemer in him or simply have subscribed to the cynical dictum 'What is truth?' Eventually, Hazel is forced to choose between living in the truth and a cynical manipulation of such.
Flannery O'Connor has been called one of the great Catholic novelists of the twentieth century. The term 'Catholic novel' might bring images of a predictable story with a happy Catholic ending - a Protestant or an atheist joyfully accepting the dogmas of the Church. O'Connor's work goes deeper than that, and the reader is forced to examine his or her own presuppositions and reactions rather than simply to accept or reject a morality play.
O'Connor herself did not describe herself as a 'Catholic novelist' but as 'a novelist who is a Catholic.' As such she sought to illuminate sometimes sordid reality from her own decidedly religious perspective, leaving the reader free to draw his own conclusions.
Bronson Pinchot's narration of the audiobook (Blackstone, 2010) is gripping. He brings each character to life in a unique way, especially the anger and passion of Hazel Motes. I will need to reread the book to understand more of the character of Enoch, whose 'wise blood' provides the title for the novel and whose attitudes cannot easily be described as innocent, but retain a difference from the manipulative motivations of other characters.
The Berlin crisis of 1961 included the East German-inspired erection of the Berlin Wall and the face-off between Soviet T-54 and American Patton tanks...moreThe Berlin crisis of 1961 included the East German-inspired erection of the Berlin Wall and the face-off between Soviet T-54 and American Patton tanks at Checkpoint Charlie. Author Frederick Kempe believes the Berlin Crisis was perhaps the defining moment of the Cold War, rather than the Cuban Missile Crisis which occurred the following year. Kempe believes that Kennedy failed in allowing the Wall to be built and in acquiescing to later East German refusal of free access of all four powers to the Soviet zone, the action that provoked the Checkpoint Charlie crisis. Kennedy's inaction, according to Kempe, stabilized the Iron Curtain for 30 years - until 1989, when the Wall finally fell.
However, Kempe also asserts that Kennedy understood that the first year of his administration was a failure on the foreign policy front, and learned from it. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy understood that West Berlin could be used by Soviet Premier Kruschschev as either a bargaining chip in negotiations, or would invade West Berlin in the case of an American invasion of Cuba. He therefore took Berlin into consideration in his handling of the crisis. Furthermore, the Missile Crisis taught Kennedy once and for all that only the certain threat of force would deter the Soviets, a lesson he was uncertain of when faced with the specter of nuclear conflict over the status of Berlin. By 1963 and Kennedy's 'Ich bin ein Berliner' speech, there was to be no mistake that Kennedy and henceforth the United States regarded the freedom of West Berlin as a vital national interest which would demand all-out war.
While Kempe suggests that the thirty-year imprisonment of East Germans behind the Iron Curtain might have been averted had Kennedy acted more decisively, the larger narrative also grants that the lessons of history, especially considering the new threat of mutual assured destruction, were not obvious at the time and had to be learned. Both hawks and doves will continue to argue over the merits of Kennedy's handling of the crises of 1961-62, while arguing over the handling of crises in the present day which will call for more judgments based on incomplete information which will affect lives of millions all over the world.(less)
Loading...
