The Form of a Brute

While reading La Bête Humaine I discovered many parallels, but there was only one that I thought captured the essence of the book (I take that back, but I like this one all the same), and that was the parallel between the train wreck caused by Flora and the train wreck that would ultimately be caused by Pecqueux. These occur in chapters X and XII, respectively. These scenes were driven by the same raw emotion: Passion. Passion is "a strong & barely controllable emotion" according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Now, consider animal characteristics...the word "beast," which has in its definition, "brutish or untamed characteristics," seems very easily relatable with passion (OED). The characters in this book, in fits of passion, often become bestial. I think Flora and Prcqueux are irrational in their behavior leading to their actions concerning the trains of passengers they destroy, as they are compromising the lives of hundreds for the sake of a couple or one person(s). Considering what was said at Lilly on Friday about Zola, it would seem to me that the author is communicating the idea that people are not bestial until they give into their passions, or loose restraint rather. There is hope for humanity, lest they let the animal within consume them. It does appear so, as on 300, after Flora has done her deed and sees Jacques and Séverine amongst the survivors, the narrator declares her feeling,"A great chill fell upon her, and she gazed at the bodies of the dead: she had killed for nothing." This remorse, though erie and half-felt, does give the reader a sense of repentance by the character. On 302, she decides to die because she had created a bloody scene and is still on the periphery of Jacques. This is a mix of self-interest with humanity. I think the novel agrees that we are both self and social concious, and the animal inside us is more related to the former. The occurrence with Precqueux is just the same, as it deals with a man, who in his jealousy tries to kill the man whom has caused it in a fit of passion; the consequence of course being a train loaded with soldiers for the front. And so it is that two stories within this tome purport a similar occurrence driven by uniform experiences: passionate ones.

I do not purport to know the true cornerstone of this novel, but it would seem to that my observation can be read into the novel. This is a first impression of a complicated and wonderful work.

The Apple of a Doting Father's Eye

Last week I was searching Netflix to find something accompany lunch. Upon searching the various titles available one particularly caught my eye because of its relation to the man we have been discussing for weeks in this class. The film I watched was titled Creation, and of course it dealt with Darwin. Despite the title, Intelligent Design was not featured; the interesting topics this film happened to portray was the father-daughter relationship of Annie and Charles, and Darwin's pre-Origin of Species inner struggle. The daughter was used more as a thought catalyst than anything through out the film (watch to see what I mean, or read further) This film was in the form of a drama based on the book Annie's Box by Randal Keynes (Great-Grandson of C. Darwin). The book is based on the materials Mr. Keynes obtained from a box Charles and and his wife allegedly left behind. The reason this work is notable because it presents a personable 'Darwin.' This film bears the man behind the science. This is a family portrait first and foremost. However, on the science, the film does answer some questions about Darwin's thoughts on his momentous project. Why did Darwin take his sweet time to write Origin of Species? What were the stumbling blocks so to speak? According to this film, an uncertainty of where humanity will go after God has died.

The topic I will lavish with attention will be solely religion and its relation to Darwin according to this film. The film shows a Darwin who was dispassionately concerned with his projects effect of Western religion, or put more precisely, Darwin’s theory was not fashioned as a weapon against religion and all it stands for. Thomas Huxley functions as the motivating force for highlighting the effect of evolution on humanity, and its implications for the existence of God in this equation. He is the one who is determined to end the question on the existence of gods once and for all. In a scene in which he is walking with Darwin on Darwin's estate, he declares to his friend that he has killed God, to Darwin's discomfort. Huxley then pushes his point by declaring further that "science is at war with religion.' He begins to damn the bishops whom he holds in contempt before Darwin interjects to explain that, 'we live in a society, a society bound together by the church, an improbable type of bark...but at least it floats.' He furthers his argument by asking inquisitively whether Huxley would 'rebuild the barge on which we sail.' Huxley retorts by utilizing Darwin's own evolutionary espousals. He mentions that we caste away things that are no longer useful to us, such as the church. This scene portrays Darwin as understanding the wider implications of his theory. It would appear he understands that organised religion is the corner stone of his society, and disproving it leaves out an entire basis for much of what keeps society in check. Thus, if this film holds up to actual accounts of Darwin's life, then it can be understood that although religion is not based in fact, it still holds an important purpose, for Darwin, and for everyone. That purpose is a secondary force of restraint on the individual side by side with the laws of the nation state.

A second dialogue occurs between Annie and Darwin (as a ghost or thought catalyst) in which Darwin while disgruntled by the implications of his theory sits in his study silently contemplating. He is interrupted by his daughter, who remarks as if knowing his thoughts, ‘it’s only a theory silly.’ He replies to his daughter’s remark, ‘No they are right (Huxley), suppose that the whole world stopped believing God had any sort of plan for us. Nothing mattered, not love, trust, faith, nor honor, only brute survival; apart from anything else it would break your mother’s heart.’ These remarks match very probable thoughts on Charles Darwin’s part. This scene further presents Darwin as a thinker who knew that the absolution of otherworldly forces enacting as law givers, does create a lack of real incentive to care for love, honor, and so on. The question becomes, are values artificial? And if they are, can I allow myself to be the progenitor of that way of thinking, especially with a wife who holds those things dearly.

So, as one interested in religion and its sociological and psychological effects, I’ve procured this much on the topic from the film. I’m not certain whether it is in line with the facts of Darwin’s own life, but I suspect that the information is available. Preciecly! I’m speculating about facts from fiction. This leaves a lot of room for comments, especially critical ones.