The more I think about Esther, the more I think that we’re being too hard on her. We’ve repeatedly noted her callousness or her emotional disconnect in regard to the Rosenberg electrocutions, but I think it’s more than fair to say that morbid curiosity is an inherent part of human nature. I have admittedly spent hours trying to recreate the physical experience of dying loved ones in my mind. I can feel the pressure of a car tire rolling over a human frame. I can see a skull hitting the concrete and cracking open like an egg. I can hear the sound of tiny broken teeth scattering about on a city street. I can imagine the increasing heaviness of two flimsy lungs as they are gradually filled with smoke. I can hear the crackle of a fire as it eats away at a sleeping bag, move on to pajamas, and then digs in at the skin. These are the experiences of friends of mine, friends who I love dearly, and yet these are images that will be forever stuck in my head. I am not mentally ill and I am certainly not callous. The sadness that I have felt and the empathy that I’ve felt for their families and partners are both immeasurable. It goes without saying.
My point in this is not about measuring my personal life against Esther’s. Rather, it has everything to do with what Jung has coined as the “shadow side.” The shadow side is, essentially, the darker half of a whole. If a person is widely perceived as being caring, then there is also a hidden element of callousness about them. Personal conflict arises when a person chooses to deny the existence of their shadow side and sees it reflected in other people instead.
"Everyone carries a shadow," Jung wrote, "and the less it is embodied in the individual's conscious life, the blacker and denser it is." Jung also believed that "in spite of its function as a reservoir for human darkness—or perhaps because of this—the shadow is the seat of creativity." [Wikipedia]
I’d like to propose two ideas: Esther finds empathy that others were expressing toward the Rosenbergs trite or obvious. Perhaps focusing on understanding the experience in a physical sense is a means toward a deeper empathy. I can say with certainty that this is why my mind's eye is haunted with such acutely detailed images. On the other hand, if Esther is indeed being callous, perhaps it’s because she is more interested in exposing her shadow side, as shadow sides are far more fascinating than their opposite. She's a writer. The shadow side is where the stories are.
If you buy into either one of these propositions, then we can say that Esther is a supremely honest character. That’s what I think anyway, so I’ll just go ahead and say that I think she’s remarkably honest. When reading A Jest of God, we had a hard time liking Rachel because of the way she would constantly censor herself—for the majority of her story, she was more or less shutting off her shadow side. In that regard, Esther is the complete opposite. She isn’t afraid to reach into the depths of her psyche. Not only does she enjoy it and find it amusing, but she seems to take quite a bit of pride in her ability to do so. She should. It takes guts.
Here we have two characters who, I think it’s safe to say, the majority of our class disliked. Neither one of these ladies could catch a break. Rachel was too self-conscious. Rachel distorted the truth. Rachel censored herself. We couldn’t trust Rachel. Esther suffers many of the same shortcomings as Rachel (and more!), but the difference is that she'll be the first to admit it. Esther will tell you anything. Sure, she’s self-conscious, she exaggerates, and she distorts; that’s all a given. But through the distorted lens of her bell jar and all of that stale air that surrounds her, it is possible to see the essence of her character. And it’s not callous. It might be the opposite.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think this is a fantastic post, Megan. I too have frequently encouraged hesitance in labeling Esther as an unsympathetic or "crazy" character, though I feel you've expressed it here with some well thought-out ideas that dig deeper than my own arguments. I do very much believe that it is a natural human tendency to have a morbid side: it is what makes us look at crashes at the side of the road, watch gross-out viral videos, and as you said above, to be able to recreate mentally the experiences of loved ones who have passed. We are simultaneously appalled and intrigued by the dark, the macabre, though arguably this cannot be applied in the same degree to everyone; nevertheless it is there in some form.
ReplyDeleteI'm entirely fascinated by your inclusion of Jung's "shadow side" concept. In this vein of thought, you are right. Esther's character is far more honest than Rachel's in A Jest of God, and perhaps this very well is because she shuts off her shadow side. We are less inclined to trust Rachel, I think, than a character like Esther for this reason. While Rachel spends a good deal of time scolding herself for her thoughts or denying them, Esther voices them aloud, and while she does indeed have issues with anxiety, depression, and a fixation on her own death, I believe her to be a more reliable narrator for this reason.
All in all, I find your post well-stated.