At
the end of the third section in part five Stephen confides to Cranly that he is
done with religion. This is not the first time we heard Stephen say this
though. At the beginning of section three Stephen also made this claim that he
was done with religion claiming basically that there was not point in repenting
for his sins because he was already in too deep. This scene in section five
though is different. Before he still had faith but just thought he was too
far-gone. Now he has lost all faith in his religion and plans on leaving it
behind him and entering a secluded life. Before he eventually found a way back,
but he states now that he does not want to find a way back to his faith so this
must be the end of his religious life.
The most striking
thing I think is that he is now going to go into further seclusion after
leaving his faith. I always thought his religion was partly responsible for his
reclusive nature because it was such a big part of his life, but now it is
clear that in fact religion was the one thing that kept him in contact with
others. If not for his religion he probably would have isolated himself even
earlier. He may feel that religion is detrimental to his artistic side, but really
the only that has been standing in the way of his writing has been his
overzealous nature. The reader is now left with the question of is this really
the best option for Stephen to develop his writing talents?
While I agree with Ciaran when he says “religion [is] the one thing that [has kept] Stephen in contact with others”, and thus that "religion is [not] detrimental to [Stephen's] artistic side], I don’t agree that Stephen’s “overzealous nature” is what holds him back. Rather, l think that Stephen's overzealous engagement in his own religious experience doesn't detract from his artistic nature, but contributes to his artistic experience. Religion gives him discipline and ritual to express himself and everything he does is overzealous. At first Stephen believes that he has a vocation to the Catholic Church, and he realizes by going overboard, he has a vocation, but not one for the Catholic priesthood. The calling for him is to artistry but he gets there through overzealously pondering the idea. Ciaran is right that religion helps Stephen encounter his true vocation - an artist.
ReplyDeleteCiaran says that Stephen will most likely not return to the Catholic faith. Looking back on his experience with sin and redemption, and nothing the general structure of the novel – 5 “acts” each with its own epiphany – I think there is still a chance for Stephen to return to the faith. In Chapter III, Stephen greatly sinned and thought he could never be forgiven – he was convinced that he was damned. However, soon after he that he sought forgiveness and made a 180-degree turn until he became obsessed with prayer and even self-mutilation. As we discussed in class, Stephen does everything with 110%, and this often leads to him going from one extreme to another. Furthermore, we’ve seen that at the end of every chapter, Stephen makes a big step forward in terms of his maturation, and then takes a small step back. Given Stephen’s past repentance and the fact that he is still maturing, I think Joyce want Stephen’s religious future to be undefined.
ReplyDeleteYou brought up Stephen's discussion with Cranly and one of the things that stood out to me was this hypocritical, probably intentionally ironic thing Craly says. He advocates that Stephen should believe in God so his mom will be happy: "Do as she wishes you to do. What is it for you? You disbelieve in it. It is a form: nothing else. And you will set her mind at rest" (213). The way I read this was almost as though Cranly is advocating Pascal's Wager--just with Stephen's mom in mind. Basically, it doesn't hurt you to believe, but there's a net benefit (your mother's happiness), so you should believe.
ReplyDeleteStephen doesn't bring up Pascal's Wager, but he does bring up the fact that Pascal refused physical contact with his mother. Stephen too seems to pick up on the parallels between Cranly and Pascal's arguments (or maybe it's random and the reference more for the reader to make the connection). Regardless, Cranly responds that "Pascal was a pig" (213). Cranly also goes on to call a couple of other people pigs afterwards because they don't love their mothers.
I feel like this whole exchange sort of undermines Cranly and the arguments that he makes. He doesn't understand the origins of his argument and then goes into ad hominem attacks.
While the reader cannot be entirely sure if this is the best option for Stephen to develop his writing talents, it is clear that Stephen views it as a necessary step in his maturation into an artist. He views "nationality, language, and religion," as the nets flung at man's soul to "hold it back from flight" (148). Stephen himself is not entirely sure if he is making the right decision, as he wonders whether this metaphorical flight is "for an augury of god or evil?" but he must take flight anyways and leave religion behind to fulfill his calling as an artist in life (164).
ReplyDelete