It's that time now. What's in a name? Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet? How much of identity is wrapped into a moniker? We instantly associate words based on our conceptions of them, "rose" means love, friendship, peace...take you pick. It certainly doesn't bear a connotation of dung heap. Call it a dung heap, would it smell as sweet? Would you choose to smell it? So often we make assumptions about people and things based on their names, or nicknames. Biff is a jock, Heather's probably blonde, Eugene probably hasn't had a date in six years, and Olga probably owns a viking helmet. This is the reason for my explanation.
Kira Karamazov. Already it's a contradiction. It is in and of itself absurd. The mixing of two cultures, Japanese and Russian, is the spring board of this absurdity. I doubt you could find anyone who would argue that the cultures are very much alike. It is two names from two very different worlds.
Taken at the level of inspiration also, it's a contradiction, a paradox. Karamazov comes not to quietly from the novel The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky. Kira is a bit more generic. The name in this instance however was lifted shamelessly from the Gundam anime series (Gundam Seed and Seed Destiny to be specific). This is the second paradox, to pull one's identity both from a novel of classic literature, and a modern animated tv show. The cultures again clash, not so much from a geographic sense this time, but a chronologic sense. It is two names from two very different times.
Karamazov is easy to explain, difficult to understand. It seems as though Dostoevsky uses the name in the phrase, "After all, I am a Karamazov" to express something more than family attachment. In the book, the Karamazov family patron is described as a sensualist, a perverse old man given entirely to self satisfaction. His three sons all take different roads in their lives, yet they all recognize the genetic proclivity towards self indulgence. It is almost as though the author, in the describing of the family, is instead talking about humanity as a whole. While all of the characters in the novel have their share of faults, the Karamazov's are the natural sins of mankind as a whole. While Dmitri is himself a sensualist, Ivan is a scholar, Alyosha is a lover and man of God. Dostoevsky himself said that the three sons are himself at different stages in his life, yet in their natures he captures all of mankind at once.
For me, it embodies my own nature. I am a thinker, I strive to be a lover, and I am a fighter, yet in all these three I am given to corruption just as every person is. Hence the surname, after all, aren't we all Karamazov's?
Now for the interesting part. Kira. Kira Yamato, coordinator. He is the perfect product of genetic engineering. He is pulled into a war he wants no part in, and ends up fighting to protect his friends. Along the way, the primary struggle he faces is this, When does wrong become right? When does evil become justified? At what point does war and fighting become a necessity. The answer is invariably the same, when the lives of the innocent are at stake. When your enemy is so corrupt and powerful that the only way to protect the innocent is by striking back, without thought, without hesitation against the monster. When the enemy makes it clear that there is no alternative that will prevent an atrocity.
The secondary question, who are the innocent? The natural and instinctive answer is civilians. However, the question is raised, at what point must the civilians who empowered the enemy take responsibility? Tyrants do not appear, they are made, carefully, by a knowing party who desires the ends that the tyrant can obtain.
This is a struggle I believe our society has a particularly difficult time with. No one wants to take responsibility for their actions. No one likes the thought of killing, but at some point it does become a necessity. For the protection of the innocent, the imprisonment or execution of the evil is a necessity.
I will be the first to say that this concept is absurd. At the same time, it is a concept that must be considered, it must be thought about in a rational manner for justice to be served instead of vigilantism. That makes it necessary. This is the necessary absurdity.
This is the contradiction, these are the two sides of the coin. Wickedness and justice. Who are we to judge? We are sinful by nature as well, and God is Loving. Who are we to stand back? We are God's image, and God is Just. Who are we to be apathetic, after all it's not us getting hurt? We are human, and this is humanity.
Kira Karamazov is a person of sinful nature, held to a higher ideal.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Recall that there is a difference between protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty. You may well say that the citizenry of any nation has allowed for the rise of oppression, but men act as individuals and are so judged; they must be so punished as well. That is, fight for the innocent, resist oppression, but do all with Charity and Counsel. Never forget that Tolkien suggested to: "…make the Ring into an allegory of our own time… an allegory of the inevitable fate that waits for all attempts to defeat evil power by power."
ReplyDeleteThat's the difference between vigilantism and justice. One punishes the individual based on past offences, Justice prevents the guilty from commiting future offences based on an established behavior pattern.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, we cannot defeat evil through our own power, however the only way to defeat evil power is by power. Joshua certainly didn't ask nicely to be let into the city of Jericho, he didn't have world peace summits with the Amorites, he did what was necessary to defeat evil and defend the innocent.
Moses spends a good part of a chapter in Deuteronomy reminding the Israelites that it is not for their righteousness that God is handing over the Canaanites to them, but rather for the wickedness of those whom they were to conquer, and for the fulfillment of his promise. What God granted unto the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, we certainly must not presume for ourselves, and so to take the Old Testament accounts of Israel's victories (including the annihilation of whole peoples, women and children), as a model for the conduct of war is dangerous at best.
ReplyDeleteFr. Roberts said something in his homily this morning that struck me. He said, "Being a Christian often means being on the losing side in the eyes of the world." We don't defeat evil; God does. We merely co-operate with his Grace and live a life of Charity and Faith. The power by which we attempt to defeat evil power of ourselves is very likely to make an evil power of us in the long run.
I make no claims of righteousness. Quite the contrary, the post itself claims failure and sinful nature, that does not preclude just acts. Certainly we must not assume a God given right for our actions, nor may we presume to tell another what God's plan for them is. Life cannot be predetermined, one cannot know where it will lead. All one can do is take the set of skills granted by God and suppose that they were given for a reason. "Take sides, any side. A man must always choose a side. He will sometimes be wrong, but a man who never takes sides must always be wrong." I believe this applies to actions as well.
ReplyDelete