Camus famously said that “Meursault is the only Christ that we deserve”—a complicated statement for an avowed atheist. But Camus, of course, was more complex in his atheism than we might commonly expect: he was an atheist in reaction to, and in the shadow of, a Catholicism osmotically imbued in the culture (of the French certainly, but of the pieds noirs in particular). The inescapable result is that his atheism is in constant dialogue with religion; in L’Étranger no less than in, say, La Peste.
Sandra Smith has, in her admirable translation, plucked carefully upon this thread in the novel, so that Anglophone readers might better grasp Camus’s allusions. Here is but one key example: the novel’s last line, in French, begins “Pour que tout soit consommé,…” which Ward translates, literally, as “For everything to be consummated.” But as Smith points out, the French carries “an echo of the last words of Jesus on the Cross: ‘Tout est consommé.’” Her chosen rendition, then, is “So that it might be finished,” a formulation that echoes Christ’s last words in the King James translation of the Bible.”
Few things are more tiresome to me than the educated Left’s ceaseless policing of the symbolic/discursive realm (e.g., politically incorrect Google Doodles), in what might charitably be described as the naive belief that consciousness-raising promotes justice, which by now we ought to know it doesn’t. Those of us who have been trained to manipulate symbols and language tend to overrate their importance, but at this point in history there’s no excuse for such overrating.
On a less charitable reading, people like policing symbols and discourses because you can do it from your computer without ever lifting a finger, or paying a cent, to alter the structural injustice that perpetuates the favelas. Signaling your outrage on Twitter does absolutely nothing to help anybody. Getting Google to take down their Doodle is a pathetic parody of a moral victory.
Meanwhile the rich keep getting richer and the poor poorer. Families and communities around the world are under assault by malicious forces. The favelas in Brazil receive no relief, and children keep getting shot in Chicago, and Wall Street (i.e., international capitalism) proceeds from strength to strength in sublime indifference to it all. If we’re going to choke on our own outrage, there are plenty of reasons. Google Doodles are not among them.”
Amen, ayjay, amen.
On a related but more general note:
Mass outrage culture is among the most toxic byproducts of the Internet age. It’s THE WORST! It promotes a way of processing news and reacting to the world that’s the very opposite of mature and responsible. It encourages participants to be tribal, unreflective, intemperate, and performative. It inculcates a sense of victimhood that makes a mockery of true injustice and hardship. And, as Jacobs notes, the amount of actual positive change that this kind of diffuse armchair activism facilitates is negligible to nonexistent. The end result is usually little more than fleeting self-satisfaction (*on to the next firestorm*) and cheap catharsis. It’s all very unhealthy and, one hopes, unsustainable.
Am I meant for this world?”
She showed off a recent tattoo on her right arm: “Whitman Nabokov,” two authors she has quoted in songs.
"I’m scared to die, but I want to die.”
By any reasonable standard, this is cringeworthy material. LDR comes off as an exceedingly boring cliche: a morose navel-gazer whose tormented self-inquiry takes the most obvious forms. "Am I meant for this world?" Please. Her attraction to death? A well-traveled trope. And this is to say nothing of that silly tattoo, which is vulnerable to an entirely separate line of criticism. Was Lana so eager to burnish her intellectual cred that she had to artlessly cram the names of two authors into one patch of ink? It screams poseur. It screams desperation.
And yet, I’m onboard with all of it. Why? For two reasons. First, this weepy, tortured persona is very cinematic and pulpy, and one can safely surmise that it’s helped to cultivate LDR’s sonic aesthetic - retro, noirish, midnight torch balladry - which is so fresh and different compared to everything else in mainstream music at the moment. That alone is a cause for celebration. Second, this is the kind of persona that thrives on drama. And that drama can often be channeled into better and better songwriting. It’s something like the Kanye rule. Be volatile, say things or maintain a presence that will elicit a reaction, and then react yourself (i.e., record an album). In the case of Ye, the results speak for themselves. Now, not everyone can pull this off, but I wouldn’t bet against LDR.
Final note: "Brooklyn Baby" rules so hard.
Which is why the most theologically cogent view of hell found in classical Christianity maintains that it is the state of mind (or soul) of someone who is alienated from God. Living a life that is out of harmony with God is painful, and to die and be confronted so decisively with the error of your ways — to be made to see that you made a wreck of your life by separating yourself from God, and to have to learn to shatter your pride by reforming yourself in his divine presence — is, one imagines, excruciating. But it is intrinsically painful, not externally imposed by torturers in some fire-and-brimstone-filled dungeon.
Or in the words of theologian David Bentley Hart, “What we call hell is nothing but the rage and remorse of the soul that will not yield itself to love.” In refusing to “open itself to the mercy and glory of God, the wrathful soul experiences the transfiguring and deifying fire of love not as bliss but as chastisement and despair.”
This is what hell must be if God is truly good.”
Damon Linker, “What Christians get wrong about hell”
Setting aside Linker’s apparent nod to universalism (“shatter your pride by reforming yourself in his divine presence”), I find myself drifting more and more toward schools of thought like this one or annihilationism. Why? For several reasons. First, the Scriptures are far from definitive on the particulars of hell. Second, God can remain a God of perfect justice without inflicting eternal conscious torment on unbelievers. But can He remain a God of love and goodness if the opposite is true? The appeal to mystery doesn’t strike me as adequate in this case. Lastly, death - and the unending separation that follows - would seem to be a more-than-just punishment on its own.
“He flipped his camper on a California highway in 1964; crashed June Carter’s Cadillac into a Nashville telephone poll in 1965, leaving several teeth at the scene; drove a tractor off a cliff and into a frigid lake in 1967; and incinerated a Mercedes in 1982 after mindlessly spinning his wheels in a ditch ignited the grass beneath. When he hallucinated a Murphy bed in his English hotel room, he tore apart a wooden wall with his bare hands to get to it. He torched 508 acres of the Los Padres National Forest, killing 49 of the area’s 53 condors and nearly killing himself, too. As he defiantly explained in court, “I don’t care about your damn yellow buzzards.” The birds exacted their revenge in 1983, when Cash squared off with an ostrich on a sylvan stroll. The creature slashed him down the middle and broke five of the singer’s ribs.”
Daniel J. Flynn, “The Christian Man in Black”
Rock ‘n’ roll can be a violent endeavor.
“But if Albert Camus was clearly a wise and admirable man in many ways, what is the lasting value of his thought? More than a half century after his death, he is still praised, debated and invoked in urgent political discussions, but he did not pretend to be a great philosopher, in the mode of Aristotle or Kant or Hegel. Nor was he. His thinking is too personal, too scattershot, too practical for that. There are many academic philosophers who label themselves Kantians, but does it make sense to be a Camusian? Perhaps not. He was a singular thinker, and his thought thins dramatically when abstracted from the particular wiry, dark-haired, deep eyed pied-noir who gave birth to it. His great writerly achievements flow from the fact that he remained entirely that man when he sat down to write. One marvels at the intricate ingenuity of the Kantian system, but one loves Camus the man.”
Ian Marcus Corbin, “Entranced by Reality”
Especially to that concluding clause I say “Amen”. As Susan Sontag once observed, “No modern writer I can think of, except Camus, has aroused love.” Why exactly? What accounts for the deep affectionate devotion that Camus stirs in his readers? Trying to isolate one reason may be a fool’s errand. If pressed, I’d point to his “fidelity to fleshly reality” (in Corbin’s words). Camus didn’t serve gods or ideologies or abstractions but his fellow man. He recognized that history was composed of actual human lives and that this mattered profoundly. It was everything, in fact. And from this awareness there flows in his work a sense of mindfulness, decency and solidarity that runs counter to the way we typically conceive of philosophers and men of letters. We love Camus because, in a way, he seemed to love us.