The Limits of Hope and of Meanness

I was recently researching some commentary on Cormac McCarthy's Pulitzer Prize winner, The Road, and I came across a quote by McCarthy regarding hope. The context of the quote dealt with McCarthy's harsh, violent characters living in a seemingly meaningless and unfeeling world --  basically how most of his writing isn't easily redemptive and, a lot of times, doesn't end well -- when I stumbled across this really powerful hammer-stroke:

"I don't think goodness is something that you learn. If you're left adrift in the world to learn goodness from it, you would be in trouble... There's not much you can do to try to make a child into something that he's not. But whatever he is, you can sure destroy it. Just be mean and cruel and you can destroy the best person."

Hmm.

It's not that I disagree with this; I think McCarthy has hit on something very real and very fundamental. What  I've been turning over in my mind is the implication behind this idea: that evil has the advantage. To be clear, I don't want to slip into naivety or an over-romanticized version of the world; evil exists, it persists, it does doom some. However, I would like to suppose that the power of evil is equally balanced by the power of good, and if McCarthy is right (and I am understanding him correctly...), evil knows no limits, and goodness does. We are born with a finite amount of goodness -- like champagne in a crystal flute, perhaps just a few drops, perhaps threatening to overflow -- and that's it. No more, forever. But apply enough cruelty, enough meanness, enough cracks to the flute, and the entire portion is capable of being drained out. Meanness can overcome any amount of goodness.

Hmm.

Can goodness be replenished? Am I reading too much into the word "destroyed"? I suppose we may rebuild what is destroyed. But then, it isn't quite the same as the original. It has potential to be great again, just not the same. And maybe therein lies the beauty. If I am only capable of a little goodness, and I lose it, then it wouldn't take me that long to regain it. After all, it was only a small amount to begin with, and if I can't recoup it, then I am probably not trying hard enough. Likewise, if I am capable of a deep level of goodness and lose it all, it will take me much longer to recapture all of it. Perhaps I would not be able to recapture every last drop, but then I started with a lot more than others and should still find myself well ahead of the game.

So, gentle reader, evil doesn't win. Or at least, it doesn't have to. It is still a very real player in the game, but ultimately it has no unfair advantage. And the best part, I think (if I'm still understanding the quote correctly...), is that we ultimately have control over the meanness and the cruelty. Don't like it? Don't do it! Those are better odds still.

2012 New Year's Resolutions

1. Jay Gatsby says he will "try to steer clear of dangerous women who cry over men's apparel."

2. Beowulf resolves nothing. For there is nothing to resolve. (Enter Chuck Norris joke here only substitute "Beowulf" for "Chuck Norris")

3. Ma Joad says she plans to feed her family "less carbs and more proteins" this coming year.

4. Boo Radley would have said "to get out more" had he actually been contacted for this list.

5. Rosencrantz resolves to "ask more questions" especially in the presence of insane royal people.

6. Daisy Buchanan says she wants to cry less around men and their shirts. To which Holden Caulfield replies"stop being so damn phony" at which Daisy starts to cry. Holden gets depressed and goes off to find the ducks.

7. Beowulf changes his mind and decides to kill a dragon and leave his country defenseless this year.

8. Montag says he will come up with a nickname to avoid further confusion over long and short vowel sounds.

9. Victor Frankenstein resolves to tamper with the natural order of life and death "just one more time."

10. Ophelia decides to "not worry" about those swimming lessons.