"Without the antagonist who cares about the good guy?" While sitting in a creative writing class last spring, I listened to professor Tryon's endless no-brainer comments. I respected my professor very much. He was a good writer and an even better critic. Many of our classes were held one-on-one in his office where he would read and analyze our stories. Even the strongest in the class felt like weeping at his criticism. He was straight forward and gave us what we needed. But why did we need to be told repetitively that our stories needed a problem, an injury a death?

I did not realized the need for these simplicities until after the term was over. Granted, my grade increased when I injured the lovable character or let the bad guy get away, but I didn't realize why. All this has to do with the problem of suffering. This morning while convincing myself to wake up I thought about the perfect story. Who wouldn't like to be born into a well off family, be raised a good boy who got along with everybody, who got the girl, the job, the perfect life and a perfect relationship with God. A great life, of course, but a good story? I think not. So why do we cringe when things go badly for the main character? Are we not looking for suffering as an entertainment value?

I wonder if this is true for life as well. Do we need suffering in order to love? It's much like being absent from someone we love. We rejoice much more upon seeing them than we would if we saw them everyday. This absence is what moves us to miss; the lack creates the good. It seems only natural to apply this to everything. Poverty appreciates wealth, war enables peace and hatred inspires compassion. It's a very dualistic notion of reality, but it's been accepted my many whether they realize it or not. It seems anti-human to wish for a place (state) like heaven. Honestly it isn't heaven I strive for, but the fact that God will provide. That's all. I don't know what else to say.

Posted in: on Saturday, February 02, 2008 at at 4:37 PM