Out, Out Brief Candle!  A Review of John Green’s The Fault in Our Stars

I have found it best to write responses to books immediately upon finishing them, while recollections and impressions are fresh. I am, alas, unable to do that with The Fault in Our Stars by John Green because this blog did not exist when I completed reading the book. This book was selected by our students last year as one of four they could choose from for our summer reading assignment. It has been immensely successful as a best-seller, and it has garnered much critical acclaim.

 I must say at the outset, I did not enjoy reading this book. I did, however, benefit from reading it because it allowed me to vicariously enter the physical, emotional and spiritual suffering of young cancer victims. (I only wish that sixteen-year-olds actually spoke as these do.) I am deeply concerned, however, with the book’s underlying nihilistic despair, or at best, its agnostic or even atheistic existential angst*(however hip and snarky it may be in presentation). The dust jacket boasts that this book is “irreverent” and “raw,” and it certainly lives up to that. On the positive side, however, the book does invite (indeed, it demands) readers to construct (or to access) their own belief systems regarding the significance of the individual, the meaning and purpose of suffering, and death and the afterlife. It is far less “insightful” in enabling readers to accomplish this, and may even be said to imply that such a task is, ultimately, impossible.

 Hazel is frustrated with the author of her favorite book (which has become a sacred text of nihilism for her) because he ends the book in mid-sentence to illustrate the death of its lead character from cancer (a postmodern trope as it applies to what happens with Hazel, herself, in this narrative). Augustus complains that this violates an unwritten contract between author and reader. Green, effectively, does the same thing with his book: after leading us on a fruitless quest for the meaning of life (a disappointing trip to Holland to visit the author and seek answers to what becomes of the characters in Hazel’s book), he leaves us with Hazel reading a previously unseen communication from Augustus, following Augustus’s funeral. The only hint that anything may have changed is the author’s switch to the present tense in Hazel’s final comments (Green makes much of this in his interview, cited below). This is strongly reminiscent of Matthew Arnold’s poem “Dover Beach,” in which, after bemoaning the loss of religious faith, he is left with only the consolation of a flesh-and-blood (unnamed in the poem) romantic partner (thought to be his wife). Hazel and Augustus may be said to have had some sort of epiphany in their relationship, which certainly did add meaning and purpose to their brief lives, despite the continuance of their suffering (Augustus has an unexpected relapse of his cancer after the romance begins). The broader question, however, remains: is this all there is? At one point, the two observe young children playing inside of a large skeleton sculpture in a park. As Augustus observes, “the symbolic resonances are endless.” Is this, then, the ultimate message—life is a brief game in a grim setting, with no ultimate meaning?

 A fascinating and highly informative (if  lengthy) interview with the author may be found at the following address:

http://johngreenbooks.com/questions-about-the-fault-in-our-stars-spoilers/.

 Jesus entered into human suffering in a personal way. He did not eliminate suffering, but he overcame it and made a way for it to become redemptive. In John 16:33, he said “In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world.” Some excellent books have been written recently to address what philosophers call “The Problem of Evil,” (a systematic response to this problem is called a “theodicy,” and several such well-known defenses have arisen over the years) and one of the best is by Randy Alcorn (an excellent author, in his own right), If God is Good, Why do We Hurt?  (available used on Amazon for as low as $7.00):

 http://www.amazon.com/If-God-Is-Good-10-Pack/dp/1601423411/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1374947640&sr=8-8&keywords=randy+alcorn

 And, of course the ultimate solution to The Problem of Evil is found in the afterlife He made possible.

 ___________________________________________

*Note: These terms are defined on my website

 

 http://hooverhigh.al.hch.schoolinsites.com/?PageName=TeacherPage&Page=16&StaffID=177873&iSection=Teachers&CorrespondingID=177873

HeartWorks 2.0

That changing and arranging much a part
of keeping my computer on its task,
may illustrate the process of my heart
an engine of a nobler purpose, fast.
For though its ownership’s not here at stake
and though its purpose I should never change,
wiser applications will be made,
and errors in the program are contained.
I’ll give no obsolescence cause to stall
the selfless interaction that I owe
to those into whose presence I am called
and those into whose networks I must grow.
This I’ve learned from staring at my screen:
within the perfect heart, change is often seen.

“Tolerance”

Proposition:  Tolerance is recognizing, understanding and respecting the ideas and beliefs of others WITHOUT SHARING THEM.  Tolerance is not an obligation to agree with everyone. A tolerant person is not required to abandon his or her own personal moral code.  A tolerant person may believe that certain actions, attitudes and beliefs are absolutely wrong or even immoral.  Any person who agrees with everything is absolutely wrong.  Those who do not allow other people to believe that certain actions or attitudes are immoral are, themselves, intolerant.  We may, therefore, respectfully criticize the actions or attitudes of others and still be tolerant.  We must always respect and care about the feelings of others, because human beings are, most times, unable to directly alter their feelings, even when those human beings acknowledge that their feelings are based upon erroneous facts.  We may, therefore, decide that a person is absolutely wrong and still not condemn that person for his or her feelings about the matter.

Question: Do you agree with this?  If not, would you be tolerant of someone who held this view?

My purpose in establishing this blog is four-fold:

1. To enter public discourse on topics I care deeply about, such as culture, politics and social policy.

2.  To develop my skill as a writer, and to model that development.

3.  To respond to the literature I am reading, and in responding, to better understand and appreciate that literature.

4.  In doing all of the above, to leverage the wonderful new power of electronic media.

This blog contains my personal opinions.  Because I am an evangelical Christian, my opinions are informed by my personal worldview as a Christian. This occurs in every area of my social, professional and intellectual life. Because I am a public school teacher, however, there are ethical and legal boundaries regarding my expression in the classroom of ideas that are specifically religious in nature. This does not mean, however, that I may not comment upon a matter from a Christian perspective, as long I do not seek to compel, or to coerce in any way, my students to adopt my own perspective. This I would never want to do, anyway. On occasion, I may also comment upon something we are discussing from a Biblical perspective without making specific reference to the Bible. It is my intention to honor the personal belief system of each of my students. In fact, I encourage each student to develop his or her own beliefs, drawing from the faith system of his or her own personal choice and also from the literature we will cover in this class. As it happens, the literature we cover in Senior English is, in most instances, expressly Christian (at least until the Romantic and Modern Periods). For example, we will objectively identify elements of Christian and Pagan thought in the first works of literature we examine from the Anglo-Saxon Period. Also, the literature of all periods is replete with allusions to the Bible. The literature of the Middle Ages (such as The Canterbury Tales) is understandable only if one has a familiarity with the practices of the Roman Catholic Church (and the history of the church in European affairs and the Crusades).  So, religion will be discussed in class, simply because it was extremely important to the people who were producing and reading the literature we will be reading. The point I am making about this blog, however, is this: in this blog, I take the liberty of expressing my personal beliefs beyond the boundaries of what would be appropriate for the classroom. I will never hold you, as a student, responsible for any of the content from this blog. You are however welcomed to visit this blog and to comment on any matter expressed herein.  I will always honor your opinion, while I may disagree with it, or I may offer suggestions regarding how you express your opinion.  I am specifically interested in helping you learn to express your opinion in a skillful and artful manner, whether I agree with it or not.

Here are some helpful links for guidelines in understanding your religious rights in a public school:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1999/08/02/associations-right-in-schools

http://www.freedomforum.org/publications/first/teachersguide/teachersguide.pdf

The title of this blog is taken from Ephesians 2:10, which reads, "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." The word workmanship in Greek is poiema, from which we get our word poem. The idea is that we are each created as a special work of God's art, and we, in turn, are expected to produce our own works of art at His direction. I like to also remember another passage found in Colossians 3: 23-24, which says that God can be honored in even the most mundane tasks we do, if we do them as unto Him. We are, each of us, artists and works of art.