FROM OUT OF THE DARKNESS
My newest ms is going to have a theme related to darkness and light, death and life, blindness and clarity. It got me thinking about heroes in general and questions I struggle with about spirituality.
Whether you want to call it original sin or something else, I believe all humans have a darkness inside of us that we need to work hard to overcome. That being said, I have a hard time accepting the idea that the state of our eternal souls hinges on absolutes, be it specific actions or absolute faith. In my mind, when it comes to believing in a higher power, there are no absolutes but “absolute love” and “absolute grace.”
Darkness is the way these absolutes are revealed. I believe (or hope at least) that darkness exists to give meaning to light. I don’t think you can have one without the other. While society, out of necessity, must punish darkness to some degree, I don’t think an omnipotent, perfect, light-filled Creator will.
Which doesn’t mean I think that Creator will make the journey to lightness easy. That’s the whole reason for the hero’s journey.
Not only must a hero overcome difficulty in a story’s plot in order to achieve his character arch, he must also overcome a certain darkness in himself, one that has always been there.
I never found Leonard Nemoy as Spock in Star Trek attractive, but I can remember rooting for the characters (most notably, Captain Kirk) who tried so hard to get Spock to show his emotions. The problem was, I never felt that he did. I found his blank-faced, solemn expression creepy, and in the episodes when he tried to project emotion, I found it even creepier. Spock angry? Never worked for me either. He was a one-dimensional shell, in my mind. (I apologize to any Trekie fans out there).
It wasn’t that Nemoy didn’t show emotion when he was supposed to. But when he did, they didn’t ring true for me. I never believed he had them to begin with. To my way of thinking, Captain Kirk didn’t seem to be a good judge of character.
At the same time, I generally get bored reading about “good” characters or “perfect characters” who only react to bad things happening to them. If the character has no say in what is or is not happening to him or her, how can the outcome be anything but arbitrary?
Anne Stuart is one of my favorite authors for a reason. She has a way with infusing tenderness and goodness into her heroes without the characters actually expressing them a whole lot on the page. What they tend to show through most of her stories is darkness and mistrust and a certain level of brutality. But they always overcome their darkness and do the right thing. I think the reason it works is the reader sees emotion and flaws all along. That’s what allows them–or at least me–to buy into the hero’s transformation. It has both believability and meaning.
QUESTION OF THE DAY: Are you a Trekie fan? What do you think of Spock?
April 9th, 2008
Virna 
in
Virna's Columns |
Everyone loves a good hero, but what do readers, agents, editors, and writers love most? Join us as we delve under the covers and find out!
April 9th, 2008 at 10:47 am
I don’t consider myself a Trekie, but I did watch the show faithfully. I also followed the spins off diligently. But as for Spock, I think what made him such an anomaly in the world of Sci-Fi, was the originality of his character. When Star Trek first aired, I was in my teens, and couldn’t imagine going through life without feeling both sorrow and joy. It was what made us grow and grow-up. I felt sorry for the character. I wanted Spock to be happy, because everyone deserved a little happiness. But I have to agree, when Spock fell off the Spock wagon, it seemed unnatural, because what we had come to expect from his blank stone expressions. His emotions were strange, and yes, even creepy and fake when he smiled.
I was a big fan of the Klingons. Yes, the biker boys of the Universe. Their emotions went from nasty, to deep and dark. They never smiled and on a good day to die were at their happiest. I suppose there is some kind of mental short-comings that afflicted me during this time in my life to find them even remotely interesting. I think it’s my attraction to the dark and damaged hero. Star Trek offered up a whole society of the personality.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Funny that Star Trek still has such a strong following when the show itself was only on air for a few short seasons. I have always liked it, though whenever I see it now, the episodes seem so cheesy! Your description of Spock as an empty shell is right on the money. I do like him for his intellectualism. What makes it so difficult to buy into him showing brief bits of emotion, for me, is that there is no struggle. He doesn’t try to let his emotions surface; nor is he trying to bury them. He is SO intellectualized that the complete lack of emotional struggle always keeps us at a distance.
You’re such a deep, thoughtful person, V. You pose such valid and interesting ideas in this column. Makes me think…
April 9th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
I am sooo a Trekkie. LOL I always loved the Spock character as a counterpoint to Kirk. One with hidden emotions and the other with his emotions out there for all to see. My fave was the doctor who always tried to get under Spock’s skin, not because he could but because he kept trying because Spock was his friend.