Love, reality and science

Does science have the answers to everything about ‘‘reality’’?

 

Science cannot really account for Jed Parry, despite the ‘‘diagnostic criteria’’ of de Clerambault, outlined in the first appendix in Ian McEwan’s novel Enduring Love.

 

The final appendix (the last word?) belongs to Parry and his ironically ‘‘enduring love’’, which has been frantically ‘‘endured’’ by Joe Rose, whose own behaviour has been ambivalently ‘‘endured’’ by his partner Clarissa.

 

Definitions, behaviours and meanings around ‘‘love’’ and ‘‘reality’’ are integral to the novel’s themes, but also the meaning of science.

 

Science and reason are among the defining features of Western culture, and this 1997 novel mounts an intriguing case to explore their limits — and limitations.

 

McEwan’s lively and intense characters — especially Joe and Jed — embody polar-opposite positions on the spectrum of reason and emotion, rationality and faith, science and art in this dramatic questioning: whose reality?

Read more here.

 

Why Clarissa?

According to Wikipedia the name Clarissa is derived from the English and French name Clarice. Clarice is derived from the Latin  word Clarus, which means “bright, clear, or famous.” Clarissa also has a Greek origin, from the root, meaning brilliant.

So why did McEwan choose it for one of his characters? Today we talked about the use of the word ‘clarity’ – could this relate to Clarissa? What do you think her role is in the novel? Try thinking about the sound of her name – what comes to mind? What about other texts, do you think McEwan is making literary connections?

It is interesting that McEwan has said that he wanted the reader to side with Clarissa and that there are all kinds of false trails in Enduring Love.  He has also said,”but I wanted Clarissa to be wrong. I wanted the police to be wrong. I rather like those plots.” Is the use of the name ironic?

There is a novel called Clarissa written by Samuel Richardson. Clarissa, or, the History of a Young Lady is an epistolary novel by Samuel Richardson, published in 1748. It tells the tragic story of a heroine whose quest for virtue is continually thwarted by her family, and is one of the longest novels in the English language. There is also Mrs Dalloway by Virginia Woolf. Mrs Dalloway details a day in the life of Clarissa Dalloway in post-World War I England.

In praise of the rational

Ian McEwan discussing Enduring Love:

“I wanted a man at the centre of this who was a clear thinker, who appears to be right but then perhaps is wrong, but is in fact right … I wanted, in other words, to write a book somewhat in praise of rationality which I thinks gets a very poor showing in western literature”.

Ian McEwan on fate and the opening

Let Ian McEwan explain his novel and read an interview with Ian McEwan. The following is an abbreviated version of an interview that ran on the NPR affiliate KUSP on February 16th, 1998 and 12:00 pm. Eric Schoeck is the Capitola Book Café Events Coordinator. Read the whole thing here.

The randomness of fate seems to be one of the most important parts of this novel. It reminded me once again, not how fragile we are, but how fragile fate can be.

I.M.: I often think that when people talk of coincidences that they’re almost bound to occur because we’re like so many atoms in a turbulent system or a gas under pressure. If you lead an averagely busy life, the number of people that you collide with, so to speak, is extraordinary. One could become your husband, or your wife, or, for that matter, your murderer. That random element in life is a gift to a novelist to make a pattern of it, to make some sense of it, to contest its meaning or even ask whether there’s any meaning to it at all. That’s part of the pleasure and unpredictability of writing a novel itself.

Often our lives seem burdened by dailiness, routine, so that we don’t tend to notice the special elements that might change us, delight us, or perhaps torment us.

I.M.: Yes. You drink your coffee, go to work. You don’t know of the disaster you avoided by simply leaving five seconds before a certain other point. There’s a lot of talk here at the moment of a terrible accident that occured in a ski resort in Italy yesterday when a American jet fighter sliced through the cable carrying 20 people 300 feet above the ground. All the people at the bottom of the mountain waiting for that car to come down and collect them would all be reflecting, had they just made it down the slope a little faster they would have been on that earlier cabin.

Had they not paused to have that extra sip of coffee, any number of things that delayed them from a certain death.

I.M.: Exactly so. It was an absolutely terrible accident. A one in a billion chance… but these things can have an extraordinarily powerful influence on our lives, on our fates.

This notion of randomness also takes place in the opening of the book. Can you sketch out for us what happens in the opening?

I.M.: It’s actually based on a real event. There’s a helium balloon, in a high wind, there’s a man in his fifties with a young boy and they’re trying to tether this balloon. The man is rather inexperienced and panic-stricken and they’re having a great deal of difficulty. The boy is in the basket, the man half out of the basket, the wind is blowing hard and he’s being dragged along the ground. The narrator, plus three or four other people, converge on this wide, high field and come running over to help. At some point the wind lifts all of them – they’ve all got ropes – and they’re faced with an immediate dilemma. They know that if they can all hang on, their combined weight will bring the thing to the ground. If one lets go, it’s crazy for anyone else to hang on. In this I saw a parable, a microcosm, of one of those great conflicts in our lives between altruism and that other primary necessity of looking after yourself.

The Balloon Accident

We have talked  great deal about the opening of the novel. We have discussed what McEwan wanted to suggest about Joe as a narrator in terms of his very organised nature. Everyone noted the visual aspects of the beginning and the drama of the balloon incident. The opening is so intense that we can see how Jed’s emotional attachment to Joe came to pass. McEwan has well and truly grabbed our attention and we want to read on.

McEwan used the balloon accident as a device to bring his group of strangers together. He had heard of a German ballooning accident and “what struck me was the dilemma of knowing that if you all hang on, you can bring the balloon to earth. But as soon as anyone breaks rank, then madness follows. The issue is selfishness. And that seems to me to be the underlying basic moral factor about ourselves. We’re descended from generations of people who survived, who acted successfully. But who also cooperated successfully; so we clearly need to save our own skins and look out for our own interests, but we’re social animals and we need other people dearly”.

Little Albert

The “Little Albert” experiment was a famous psychology experiment conducted by behaviorist John B. Watson and graduate student Rosalie Raynor. Previously, Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov had conducted experiments demonstrating the conditioning process in dogs. Watson was interested in taking Pavlov’s research further to show that emotional reactions could be classically conditioned in people.

The participant in the experiment was a child that Watson and Raynor called “Albert B.”, but is known popularly today as Little Albert. Around the age of nine months, Watson and Raynor exposed the child to a series of stimuli including a white rat, a rabbit, a monkey, masks and burning newspapers and observed the boy’s reactions. The boy initially showed no fear of any of the objects he was shown.

The next time Albert was exposed the rat, Watson made a loud noise by hitting a metal pipe with a hammer. Naturally, the child began to cry after hearing the loud noise. After repeatedly pairing the white rat with the loud noise, Albert began to cry simply after seeing the rat.

Watson and Raynor wrote:

“The instant the rat was shown, the baby began to cry. Almost instantly he turned sharply to the left, fell over on [his] left side, raised himself on all fours and began to crawl away so rapidly that he was caught with difficulty before reaching the edge of the table.”

Read more here.

Deism

The term deism came up today – here is a definition:

Deism is the belief in a supreme being, who remains unknowable and untouchable. God is viewed as merely the “first cause” and underlying principle of rationality in the universe. Deists believe in a god of nature – a noninterventionist creator – who permits the universe to run itself according to natural laws. Like a “clockmaker god” initiating the cosmic process, the universe moves forward, without needing God’s supervision. Deism believes that precise and unvarying laws define the universe as self-operating and self-explanatory. These laws reveal themselves through “the light of reason and nature.”

From All About Philosophy.